El Niño or ñot, the Pause lengthens again

Global temperature update: no warming for 18 years 4 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Since December 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature – so far unaffected by the most persistent el Niño conditions of the present rather attenuated cycle – shows a new record length for the ever-Greater Pause: 18 years 4 months – and counting.

This result rather surprises me. I’d expected even a weak el Niño to have more effect that this, but it is always possible that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an el Niño will come through after a lag of four or five months. On the other hand, Roy Spencer, at his always-to-the-point blog (drroyspencer.com), says: “We are probably past the point of reaching a new peak temperature anomaly from the current El Niño, suggesting it was rather weak.” I shall defer to the expert, with pleasure. For if la Niña conditions begin to cool the oceans in time, there could be quite some lengthening of the Pause just in time for the Paris world-government summit in December.

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 4 months since December 1996.

The hiatus period of 18 years 4 months, or 220 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

Given that the Paris summit is approaching and most “world leaders” are not being told the truth about the Pause, it would be a great help if readers were to do their best to let their national negotiators and politicians know that unexciting reality continues to diverge ever more spectacularly from the bizarre “settled-science” predictions on which Thermageddon was built.

The divergence between the models’ predictions in 1990 (Fig. 2) and 2005 (Fig. 3), on the one hand, and the observed outturn, on the other, also continues to widen, and is now becoming a real embarrassment to the profiteers of doom – or would be, if the mainstream news media were actually to report the data rather than merely repeating the failed predictions of catastrophe.

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), for the 303 months January 1990 to March 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.

clip_image006.pngFigure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to March 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 real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

The Technical Note has now been much expanded to take account of the fact that the oceans, according to the ARGO bathythermograph data, are scarcely warming.

Key facts about global temperature

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 220 months from December 1996 to March 2014 – more than half the 435-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 The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO bathythermograph buoys, are warming at a rate equivalent to just 0.02 Cº per decade, or 0.2 Cº per century.

Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. 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 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.

The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

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

Dr Mears’ results are summarized in Fig. T1:

clip_image008.png

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

Dr Mears writes:

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

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

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

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

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.

Sources of the IPCC projections in Figs. 2 and 3

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.

In 1990, the IPCC said this:

“Based on current models we predict:

“under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 Cº per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 Cº to 0.5 Cº per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 Cº above the present value by 2025 and 3 Cº before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors” (p. xii).

Later, the IPCC said:

“The numbers given below are based on high-resolution models, scaled to be consistent with our best estimate of global mean warming of 1.8 Cº by 2030. For values consistent with other estimates of global temperature rise, the numbers below should be reduced by 30% for the low estimate or increased by 50% for the high estimate” (p. xxiv).

The orange region in Fig. 2 represents the IPCC’s less extreme medium-term Scenario-A estimate of near-term warming, i.e. 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K by 2025, rather than its more extreme Scenario-A estimate, i.e. 1.8 [1.3, 3.7] K by 2030.

Some try to say the IPCC did not predict the straight-line global warming rate that is shown in Figs. 2-3. In fact, however, the IPCC’s predicted global warming over so short a term as the 25 years from 1990 to the present are little different from a straight line (Fig. T2).

clip_image010

Figure T2. Historical warming from 1850-1990, and predicted warming from 1990-2100 on the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A (IPCC, 1990, p. xxii).

Because this difference between a straight line and the slight uptick in the warming rate the IPCC predicted over the period 1990-2025 is so small, one can look at it another way. To reach the 1 K central estimate of warming since 1990 by 2025, there would have to be twice as much warming in the next ten years as there was in the last 25 years. That is not likely.

Likewise, to reach 1.8 K by 2030, there would have to be four or five times as much warming in the next 15 years as there was in the last 25 years. That is still less likely.

But is the Pause perhaps caused by the fact that CO2 emissions have not been rising anything like as fast as the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A prediction in 1990? No: CO2 emissions have risen rather above the Scenario-A prediction (Fig. T3).

clip_image012

Figure T3. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, etc., in 2012, from Le Quéré et al. (2014), plotted against the chart of “man-made carbon dioxide emissions”, in billions of tonnes of carbon per year, from IPCC (1990).

Plainly, therefore, CO2 emissions since 1990 have proven to be closer to Scenario A than to any other case, because for all the talk about CO2 emissions reduction the fact is that the rate of expansion of fossil-fuel burning in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc., far outstrips the paltry reductions we have achieved in the West to date.

True, methane concentration has not risen as predicted in 1990 (Fig. T4), for methane emissions, though largely uncontrolled, are simply not rising as the models had predicted, and the predictions were extravagantly baseless.

The overall picture is clear. Scenario A is the emissions scenario from 1990 that is closest to the observed emissions outturn, and yet there has only been a third of a degree of global warming since 1990 – about half of what the IPCC had then predicted with what it called “substantial confidence”.

clip_image014

Figure T4. Methane concentration as predicted in four IPCC Assessment Reports, together with (in black) the observed outturn, which is running along the bottom of the least prediction. This graph appeared in the pre-final draft of IPCC (2013), but had mysteriously been deleted from the final, published version, inferentially because the IPCC did not want to display such a plain comparison between absurdly exaggerated predictions and unexciting reality.

To be precise, 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 0.35 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, that was predicted for Scenario A in IPCC (1990). The outturn is visibly well below even the least estimate.

In 1990, the IPCC’s central prediction of the near-term warming rate was higher by two-thirds than its prediction is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. T5 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

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.

Actually, it is not known whether the ocean is warming: each of the 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys somehow has to cover 200,000 cubic kilometres of ocean – a 100,000-square-mile box more than 316 km square and 2 km deep. Plainly, the results on the basis of a resolution that sparse (which, as Willis Eschenbach puts it, is approximately the equivalent of trying to take a single temperature and salinity profile taken at a single point in Lake Superior less than once a year) are not going to be a lot better than guesswork.

Fortunately, a long-standing bug in the ARGO data delivery system has now been fixed, so I am able to get the monthly global mean ocean temperature data – though ARGO seems not to have updated the dataset since December 2014. However, that gives us 11 full years of data. Results are plotted in Fig. T5. The ocean warming, if ARGO is right, is equivalent to just 0.02 Cº decade–1, or 0.2 Cº century–1 equivalent.

clip_image016

Figure T5. The entire near-global ARGO 2 km ocean temperature dataset from January 2004 to December 2014 (black spline-curve), with the least-squares linear-regression trend calculated from the data by the author (green arrow).

Finally, though the ARGO buoys measure ocean temperature change directly, before publication NOAA craftily converts the temperature change into zettajoules of ocean heat content change, which make the change seem a whole lot larger.

The terrifying-sounding heat content change of 260 ZJ from 1970 to 2014 (Fig. T6) is equivalent to just 0.2 K/century of global warming. All those “Hiroshima bombs of heat” are a barely discernible pinprick. The ocean and its heat capacity are a lot bigger than some may realize.

clip_image018

Figure T6. Ocean heat content change, 1957-2013, in Zettajoules from NOAA’s NODC Ocean Climate Lab: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT, with the heat content values 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.

Converting the ocean heat content change back to temperature change reveals an interesting discrepancy between NOAA’s data and that of the ARGO system. Over the period of ARGO data, from 2004-2014, the NOAA data imply that the oceans are warming at 0.05 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.5 Cº century–1, or rather more than double the rate shown by ARGO.

ARGO has the better-resolved dataset, but since the resolutions of all ocean datasets are very low one should treat all these results with caution. What one can say is that, on such evidence as these datasets are capable of providing, the difference between underlying warming rate of the ocean and that of the atmosphere is not statistically significant, suggesting that if the “missing heat” is hiding in the oceans it has magically found its way into the abyssal strata without managing to warm the upper strata on the way. On these data, too, there is no evidence of rapid or catastrophic ocean warming.

Furthermore, 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 were 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.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
309 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bernd Palmer
April 6, 2015 7:23 am

But 97% of climate scientists have come to the conclusion that this non-warming is due to human activity.

Reply to  Bernd Palmer
April 6, 2015 8:59 am

My pull quote for the day!

Reply to  Bernd Palmer
April 6, 2015 10:50 am

It absolutely is warming if you look at the appropriate time frame instead of this miniscule timeframe.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Matt Henderson
April 6, 2015 11:36 am

“Appropriate time frame”. In other words if you cherry-pick, you get warming, which is what you want.
Got it.

MarkW
Reply to  Matt Henderson
April 6, 2015 11:40 am

So you can’t explain why it hasn’t warmed for over 18 years, so instead you will just ignore that inconvenient fact.
How warmist of you.

MarkW
Reply to  Matt Henderson
April 6, 2015 11:40 am

Using a different “appropriate time frame”, I can show that it is cooling.

Shamrock
Reply to  Matt Henderson
April 6, 2015 12:45 pm

Do you mean the bulk of warming which occurred prior to 1950, so couldn’t be anthropogenic according to the IPCC. Two nearly identical periods of warming, with a pause in between, one definitely not anthropogenic, the other most certainly? Now we have another pause. Why haven’t temperatures continued to rise? Is it because the warming referred to only happens in models, not even experimentation? Plus no other records anywhere in the geological history of this planet that showed CO2 rises causing warming. Yes, the pause argument cherry picks the data to show a flat line, but it correctly points out the warming trend has abated or stopped. I prefer to look at the full satellite record; instead warmists choose obviously corrupted ground measurements. Why?

Brute
Reply to  Matt Henderson
April 6, 2015 1:18 pm

@Matt Henderson
Please justify in scientific detail what “appropriate time frame” means to you.

Reply to  Matt Henderson
April 6, 2015 3:10 pm

Yeah, It was cooler during the Ice ages.

Richard G
Reply to  Bernd Palmer
April 6, 2015 12:55 pm

If that’s the case, I think the Antarctic could use a little more human activity. The Alarmists, Climastrologists and Warmists could all go down there and do their part. They’ll just need to check the boarding times for the Ship of Fools and dress appropriately. The current temperatures down there now.
South Pole…-86F
Vostok……..-92F
Davis……….-94F

Santa Baby
Reply to  Bernd Palmer
April 6, 2015 2:18 pm

NO it is 97% of the politicians that, 1992, have come to the conclusion that this non-warming is due to human Activity. They then established and Financed think tanks that look like climate sience to support their policy.

April 6, 2015 7:24 am

RSS dataset is not a good reference since it is known to be biased. UAH has been corrected for orbital decay,

Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
April 6, 2015 8:18 am
Dave
Reply to  Kristian
April 6, 2015 9:17 am

Yes, all data sets need adjusting, the models tell us that. Measurements will be deemed correct when they show what the models predict.

Reply to  Kristian
April 6, 2015 9:01 pm

The data sets seem to track rather well since the orbital decay issue was reported [by RSS in Nature, July 7, 1998 http://images.remss.com/papers/MSU_Nature_Article.pdf ]. The comparison of the data sets is graphed here: http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/validation

Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
April 6, 2015 9:32 am

Taking the mean of the UAH and RSS datasets, which pull in different directions, gives quite a fair indication of the temperature trend, and you will find it in Figs. 2 and 3 of the head posting. The mean of the two trends is much the same as the mean of the three long-standing terrestrial datasets.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 6, 2015 2:35 pm

the average of right and wrong is not necessarily less wrong.
Averaging UAH and RSS is not guarranteed to get you anything.

lee
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 6, 2015 6:34 pm

#Steve Mosher
The averaging of global temperatures, or global warming models is not guaranteed either, to achieve anything useful. But the warmists still do it. Curious eh?

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 6, 2015 6:49 pm

@ Mosher…yet the averaging of 70 or 80 wrong models leads to what? All of them wrong to the high side. Some much worse than others. Whereas the 2 sat sets are close and are at the least consistently tracking real data.

xyzzy11
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 7, 2015 12:31 am

Steven Mosher April 6, 2015 at 2:35 pm
the average of right and wrong is not necessarily less wrong.
Averaging UAH and RSS is not guarranteed (sic) to get you anything.

yet, we have a “global” average temperature, which has less mathematical foundation than the averaging of two similar data sets.
Also, which is right and which is wrong?

MarkW
Reply to  Barry
April 6, 2015 11:44 am

Your chart still shows no warming for the last 18 years.
Regardless, why start with 1880? Could it be that this was the coldest point of the little ice age?
If you go back further, you will see the planet getting warmer, even though CO2 is still low.

Hugh
Reply to  Barry
April 6, 2015 12:10 pm

Your point being it’s 0.5 °C warmer than 1970? That’s sbout 1.2°C/century. How much IPCC told us to expect befiore 2025?

charles nelson
Reply to  Barry
April 6, 2015 2:30 pm

Maybe the ‘thing’ that was eating up all the CO2 around 1910 will come back. Eeeeeek!

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muizenberg
Reply to  Barry
April 6, 2015 4:44 pm

Your CO2 concentration is out by more than 100 ppm for 1940. WUWT? There are measurements, you know.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Barry
April 6, 2015 7:34 pm

MarkW,

Your chart still shows no warming for the last 18 years.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MW_NJp28Udc/VNS3EAEqpOI/AAAAAAAAAUs/hjhuLZFkdoM/s1600/hadcrut4%2Bhiatuses.png
Call me in 22 years.

Regardless, why start with 1880? Could it be that this was the coldest point of the little ice age?

Unless we agree to rule out magic, there’s not much point discussing any evidence whatsoever.

If you go back further, you will see the planet getting warmer, even though CO2 is still low.

And …. ?

MarkW
Reply to  Barry
April 6, 2015 8:50 pm

Brandon, it’s really pretty simple, unless your mind is closed to any evidence that doesn’t support what you want to believe.
The fact remains, temperatures rise and fall and have forever independant of the CO2 concentration.
In the last 100 years, temperatures have gone up while CO2 increased.
Temperatures have gone down while CO2 increased.
Temperatures have gone up while CO2 remained constant.
Temperatures have done nothing while CO2 has gone up.
CO2 is not the master element, as you have been taught to believe.

Hivemind
Reply to  Barry
April 7, 2015 12:59 am

How do you account for the fact that temperatures were cooling in 1880, even though CO2 was increasing? A more fundamental problem is the cherry-picking of the data, which doesn’t show the earlier temperatures which make it fundamentally clear that there is no relation between CO2 and warming.

george e. smith
Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
April 6, 2015 10:51 am

So Frederick, which data set should we use; one that is not biased of course ?? The surface based ones are useless of course since they don’t conform to Nyquist sampling requirements.
I should add that Lord Monckton omitted another key factoid about global Temperatures.
His fig 1 etc piddling little Temperature Scale of about 1.0 deg. C range is just a small part of the total global Temperature range available on any ordinary day, of typically 120 deg. C, out of an extreme range of about 150 + deg. C from a low of about -94 deg. C in the winter Antarctic highlands, to about +60 deg. C in the hottest North African and middle Eastern deserts.
Between those extremes of course there are an infinite number of places on earth that will register ANY value of Temperature between the high and the low. They lie on any line you can draw between the two extreme points.
So if RSS data set has a bias, that is a real ho hum for me.
Let me restate (in effect) the consequences of Christopher’s analysis.
For the past 18 years and 4 months, the biased RSS data set has not strayed statistically from its well known bias value, which has remained rock steady at its well known value.
There, that should fix it.

Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
April 6, 2015 5:11 pm

In 2013, IPCC acknowledged a “statistically non-significant” trend from 1998-2012 in the thermometer-based datasets: “Regardless, all global combined LSAT and SST data sets exhibit a statistically non-significant warming trend over 1998–2012 (0.042°C ± 0.093°C per decade (HadCRUT4); 0.037°C ± 0.085°C per decade (NCDC MLOST); 0.069°C ± 0.082°C per decade (GISS)).” [AR5, WG1, Chapter 2, p. 194.]
http://ipcc.wikia.com/wiki/152.4.3_Global_Combined_Land_and_Sea_Surface_Temperature

David A
Reply to  Frederick Colbourne
April 6, 2015 11:37 pm

So is RSS. They use different satellites. Both have adjustments far more rational then the surface record.

Editor
April 6, 2015 7:24 am

An excellent post Christopher! What was the result of the previous 215 month satellite readings, because it might be interesting to put them together, if that is, platinum resistance thermometers were used for the 440 month period?

Reply to  andrewmharding
April 6, 2015 2:51 pm

In answer to Mr Harding – and thank you for your kind words – the RSS data show 0.44 K warming since Jan 1979, equiv. to 1.22 K/century; UAH 0.51 K, equiv. to 1.39 K/century; mean 0.47 K, equiv. to 1.31 K/century.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 7, 2015 11:07 am

Thank you for your reply. If solar activity is taken into account then these are the global temperatures that would be expected if the solar cycle is taken into account. I am more convinced that the Sun has a greater influence on the climate than man-made CO2

joelobryan
April 6, 2015 7:26 am

Thank you, Lord Monckton. I suspect the AGW faithful advocating stringent economy-destroying CO2 emission controls understand they are simply in race with nature to get out in front of a coming natural cooling cycle. If they can win the race against science and nature, they will claim a causal linkage to maintain the scam for generations.

harrytwinotter
April 6, 2015 7:32 am

You are aware searching thru a single global temperature dataset for a particular trend line is cherry picking?

Reply to  harrytwinotter
April 6, 2015 8:16 am

You might be right, harry, so in this case, it is a good thing that it has not been done here.

MCourtney
Reply to  harrytwinotter
April 6, 2015 9:44 am

harrytwinotter, the start date for this trend is now.
It then goes back until the trend is not statistically indistinguishable from zero.
It is not cherry-picking to startnow as now is special. It’s where we are.
Unless you’re living in the past and still see newsworthy AGW as a probable outcome.

Reply to  MCourtney
April 6, 2015 10:12 am

Of course you’re correct.
If one asks “How long have you been smoke free?”
You would start with today’s date and add up all those days that you had zero butts back to the day you smoked one…that’s where you have to stop counting if you want to answer the question honestly.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  MCourtney
April 6, 2015 10:19 am

No, it is definitely a cherry-pick.
– Only one dataset is used, one that is know to be noisy especially with monthly data.
– The large El Nino spike in 1998 is still throwing the underlying trend off.
– Searching backwards in time from the current month to find a zero trend line is the same as picking a starting point.
I have got nothing against the RSS dataset it measures what it measures. It reacts differently to El Ninos and Arctic warming compared to the surface datasets. But people should avoid playing games with the data.

Reply to  MCourtney
April 6, 2015 10:27 am

MCourtney, you just cannot educate some people. harrytwinotter says:
No, it is definitely a cherry-pick.
The *ahem* ‘consensus’, including most of the warmists, now agrees that global warming has stopped [they say “paused”, but same-same].
But I suppose if harrytwinotter had to admit that, his head would explode from cognitive dissonance. So he continues with the debunked narrative that global warming is continuing as usual.
Some folks are living in their own reality-free bubble, and harry is a perfect example.

Brute
Reply to  MCourtney
April 6, 2015 1:25 pm

@MCourtney
Indeed. If the temperature at this point in time does not matter and if the change in temperature (or lack of) up to this point in time does not matter either, then what matters at this point in time?
By the way, thanks to Monckton for keeping up with these updates. The effort is appreciated.

Reply to  MCourtney
April 6, 2015 2:54 pm

Harrytwinotter is incorrect. To ensure comparability between one month and the next, I have long used RSS, not least because it is the first to report in most months. However, UAH and RSS are also averaged, for UAH tends to run hot and RSS cool. Their average, a reasonable indication of global temperature change, is shown in Figs. 2-3 of the post, and it is ever further below the interval of predictions made by the IPCC in 1990.
As if that were not enough, the technical note also has not one but two representations of the rate of global ocean warming. So don’t whine about cherry-picking.

MCourtney
Reply to  MCourtney
April 6, 2015 3:45 pm

OK, so the (no) trend found is shown to be justifiable.
That leaves the question of if it’s (not) found to be useful for planning?
That depends on if the difference is large enough to impact the costs that would be incurred anyway.
So if AGW is slower than the wear and tear on infrastructure then the extra cost is negligible.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  MCourtney
April 6, 2015 7:44 pm

MCourtney,
I’m of the mind that simple trend analysis on one and only one parameter in this application is of limited utility. That does put me at odds with some consensus literature, and certainly with popular consensus commentary, but nowhere near entirely.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  MCourtney
April 7, 2015 1:37 am

Monckton of Brenchley.
You are making a claim of “No global warming for 18 years 4 months” using one dataset and a trend line you search for in noisy data.
My comment about cherry-picking stands.

Reply to  MCourtney
April 7, 2015 2:08 am

@harrytwinotter:
No, your comment fails. Global warming has stopped, and all your alarmist comments cannot change that fact.
You can stop being a loser if you want to. Face the facts, the alarmist clique was wrong. Global warming has stopped. All you are doing now is digging your hole deeper and deeper. Really, what is the matter with you? Has the media colonized your mind with their false alarm, to the point that you can’t think for yourself?

george e. smith
Reply to  MCourtney
April 7, 2015 8:26 am

“””””…..
harrytwinotter
April 7, 2015 at 1:37 am
Monckton of Brenchley.
You are making a claim of “No global warming for 18 years 4 months” using one dataset and a trend line you search for in noisy data…….””””””
So Harry, just what is your authority for making the assertion that the data used by Lord Monckton of Brenchley is “noisy.”
If you pick up any volume of any encyclopedia, and record the last letter of the last word on the top line of each page starting from the first page, and proceeding sequentially to the last page, you will get a record of letters that dance around all over the place.
That is not “noise”. That IS THE DATA.
And the Monckton algorithm searches for nothing. The output of his algorithm is predetermined by the data set, and is unique.
Repeating the algorithm on the same data set, will always produce the same result, because it is not “noisy”.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  MCourtney
April 7, 2015 10:52 am

George E. Smith.
The data is noisy. If the data wasn’t so noisy it would be easier to determine statistically significant trends in it.
Do the calcs yourself if you are interested, I did.

MarkW
Reply to  MCourtney
April 7, 2015 11:24 am

The data doesn’t show what you want it to show. Ergo, it’s noisy.
Gotcha.

benpal
Reply to  MCourtney
April 7, 2015 11:51 pm

@harrytwinotter
April 7, 2015 at 10:52 am
“George E. Smith.
The data is noisy. If the data wasn’t so noisy it would be easier to determine statistically significant trends in it.
Do the calcs yourself if you are interested, I did.”
The data is the data, and it’s temperature measurements. What’s the noise in there? How would you remove the noise; by removing the measurements? A trend doesn’t have to be “statistically significant” to be a trend.
The calcs don’t tell you anything about the correctness of a method; the method is either right or wrong and if it’s wrong, you don’t need to calculate.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  MCourtney
April 8, 2015 12:34 am

MarkW,
I say the data is noisy because the data is noisy, actually.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  MCourtney
April 8, 2015 12:41 am

Benpal,
the trend does have to be “statistically significant”, otherwise you won’t be able to demonstrate that the trend didn’t occur by chance, to any level of confidence.
Do the calculations yourself if you don’t believe me.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
April 6, 2015 9:53 am

MCourtney is right. But it never seemas to sink in:
The length of the current trend begins now, and is measured back to its beginning. Global warming has been stopped for 18+ years — beginning now, and measuring back to when it stopped.

Reply to  dbstealey
April 6, 2015 10:28 am

(Snip. Fake sockpuppet impersonating the real Ron House — it is the banned “David Socrates” again. -mod)

Reply to  dbstealey
April 6, 2015 10:29 am

That’s a fake Ron House posting here. IMHO.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  dbstealey
April 6, 2015 10:47 am

The trick is to find a long enough run of data that appears to be statistically significant. I did a rough analysis and the run becomes statistically significant from 1990-2015. 25 years! Not surprising the climate people like 30 years.
Personally I would not use monthly data anyway, better to determine a yearly average and at least get rid of the annual cycle from the noise. RSS is biased somewhat around the seasons as it does not cover the entire globe and it covers the northern hemisphere more than the southern hemisphere.

Reply to  dbstealey
April 6, 2015 10:57 am

Veritas,
If we go back to 1998 (thus eliminating the 1997 spike) we still see that global T is declining.
Also, RSS and UAH have been steadily converging. Soon they will be the same. But it doesn’t really matter, since they only differ by a minuscule fraction of a degree — and within error bars.
The alarmist crowd just cannot stand the fact that the most accurate global temperature measurements in existence show that global warming has stopped.
But it has, and that debunks their CO2=CAGW conjecture. It has been falsified by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth. The alarmist crowd is flat wrong. Of course, they won’t give up. CAGW is their eco-religion.

Reply to  dbstealey
April 6, 2015 2:57 pm

One should take trends over at least a quarter of a century where possible, and – in order to avoid the cherry-picking that led the modelers to extrapolate a PDO-positive-phase trend – one must either center one’s period of study on a PDO phase boundary or do trends as multiples of 60 years, so as to encompass a full warming and cooling cycle of the PDO.

Reply to  dbstealey
April 6, 2015 4:08 pm

I am no statistician or math whiz (I’m a lawyer) but it seems to me that if there was warming, when you start now and work backwards to establish a trend, you would not find significant stretches of zero warming.

Peter Sable
Reply to  dbstealey
April 6, 2015 10:17 pm

harrytwintotter: Personally I would not use monthly data anyway, better to determine a yearly average and at least get rid of the annual cycle from the noise.
Personally as someone has used signal processing techniques for profit, I’m horrified you confuse decimation with filtering, and that you consider a filter (averaging) that can alias up to 20% of the signal to a lower frequency and has non-linear phase a reasonable technique for filtering.

Reply to  dbstealey
April 6, 2015 11:33 pm

Are you implying that you are unable to explain the trend which you are showing us? Perhaps, you meant to show us how to make an invalid cherry pick. Nice going. Speaking of which, I just noticed that the IPCC likes to cherry pick to make their point. That “business as usual” graph states that their start point for realized temp rise is from 1765 to the present time. The year 1765 was a solar minimum. So they have cherry picked a low point to make their estimation. As such their argument is null and void as to any valid connection to nature. A slight move either way changes their entire premise.

george e. smith
Reply to  harrytwinotter
April 6, 2015 10:57 am

All experimental data sets are finite. Ergo, use of ANY data set, is cherry picking. We should always use all possible numbers in reaching any conclusion.

Reply to  george e. smith
April 6, 2015 11:09 am

Correct, George. When their only argument amounts to accusations of “cherry picking”, we know they’ve run out of credible arguments.
harrytwinotter says:
The trick is to find a long enough run of data that appears to be statistically significant. I did a rough analysis and the run becomes statistically significant from 1990-2015. 25 years! Not surprising the climate people like 30 years.
May I deconstruct? Thank you:
First, we don’t need harry’s “trick”. And he doesn’t name his “climate people”. So I will post a name for him: according to arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones, fifteen (15) years of no global warming is enough to be statistically significant. Global warming stopped 18+ years ago. So harryt.o. needs to go argue with Jones if he doesn’t like it.
It’s not suprising that harry “cherry pick” twinotter would want to go back to 1990. Why did he pick that year? Why not pick 1980, when the last natural warming cycle began?
I have to larf at the desperation of the alarmist cult posting here. If it weren’t for moving the goal posts, they wouldn’t have an argument at all. I’m not the only one amused by their desperation, either: Planet Earth is busy debunking everything they believe in. That must really hurt.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  george e. smith
April 6, 2015 8:07 pm

george e. smith,

All experimental data sets are finite. Ergo, use of ANY data set, is cherry picking.

I think that’s too broad a definition.

We should always use all possible numbers in reaching any conclusion.

I agree with that. However, the system in question is massive and has been around for a very, very long time. We don’t have near as much data as we want. On the other hand, there is a limit to how much data we could reasonably process and use. As well, some data are simply crap.
dbstealey,

When their only argument amounts to accusations of “cherry picking”, we know they’ve run out of credible arguments.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/04/an-engineers-ice-core-thought-experiment-2-the-follow-up-2/
J. Philip Peterson
April 4, 2015 at 1:51 pm
Would this be a good summary of your Thought Experiment #2”? –
So are you saying in so many words that the 800,000 year ice cores do not show spikes in the atmospheric CO2 such as we have seen in the last 50 to 100 years?
In other words are you saying that there have been spikes higher than 400 ppm in the last 800,000 years, but because of the way (method that) it is trapped in the ice, it doesn’t record these spikes (ie. spikes of less than 200 years)??:
dbstealey
April 4, 2015 at 2:37 pm
I’m not sure myself. But I am pretty sure that CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the past. Selecting a time frame like ‘800,000 years’ reeks of cherry-picking.

I’m not sure further comment is required.

Reply to  george e. smith
April 7, 2015 1:29 am

Gates says:
I’m not sure further comment is required.
Oh, but further comment is too juicy to pass by.
First: when a comment only <–[my qualification] uses cherry picking it is a fail. But when a comment uses cherry picking among other points like mine did, and explains the rationale, it reinforces the point: CO2 has been up to 20X higher in the past. That debunks the alarmists view, so as usual Gates nit-picks one tiny part of a statement that he in turn cherry-picked to try and win a losing argument. As always, Gates comes up short.
In his interminable fixation trying to rescue a debate that Gates lost a long time ago, he nitpicks small parts of an accurate statement. He does that with everyone, in his hopeless crusade to support the failed climate alarmist narrative.
The planet is making it clear that Gates and his ilk are flat wrong. Global warming has stopped. But Gates doesn’t argue because he’s right or wrong. He argues because his endless nitpicking gives him pleasure in some perverse way. After thousands of comments trying to be convincing and failing, it’s clear Gates has problems that go far beyond losing the debate.
Next, as Monckton points out, The hiatus period of 18 years 4 months, or 220 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

In other words, global warming has stopped. Not one climate alarmist predicted that major event. If they were honest scientific skeptics, they would admit that their conjecture has failed so spectacularly that nothing can resurrect it now except runaway global warming and climate catastrophe (which they crave, haters of humanity that they are). Could they be any more despicable?
Finally, I invite Gates to go back to the alarmist blogs where he badmouths and insults WUWT and its readers, and apologize. A stand-up guy would do that. Gates won’t.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
April 6, 2015 1:31 pm

harrytwinotter says:
Searching backwards in time from the current month to find a zero trend line is the same as picking a starting point.
——
In fact, it is quite the opposite, since searching back, by definition, means that you don’t know the answer a priori

Reply to  philincalifornia
April 6, 2015 6:54 pm

Here is a thought experiment for Harrytwinoter. If the pause were to last another 100 years, so if there were 118 years of no warming, would starting from the current year and working backward be cherry picking?

harrytwinotter
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 7, 2015 1:46 am

Tom Trevor,
If they have 118 years of data and the trend line is zero and the trend is statistically significant, then yes they would conclude there is no warming (or cooling) trend in that dataset.
But I do not think 118 years are required, the dataset shows a statistically significant trend after about 25 years (at least by the method I use for the analysis).

David A
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 7, 2015 6:47 am

Harry, Phil and Tom are clearly correct. If a question contains no date, then it is futile to call it cherry picking. Also the models did not predict the pause.
Your complaint about it not being 30 years is mindless. ENSO cycle must be considered, and those take a minimum of 60 years to cycle. This means the warming period, 1979 to 1998, was cherry stuffed full with positive ENSO and increasing surface insolation seen via earth’s albedo changes and cloud cover flux.

MarkW
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 7, 2015 10:21 am

On what basis do you claim that 18 years is not significant.
Only a few years ago, the modelers were proclaiming that 15 years without an increase would be significant?

harrytwinotter
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 7, 2015 11:01 am

MarkW
“On what basis do you claim that 18 years is not significant.”
The basis I claim is it is not statistically significant. Do the calculations yourself.
You will need to provide the citation for the modellers claim of statistical significance after 15 years. I do not see it in the RSS data. But it is possible the modellers used a different approach, or have better knowledge of the RSS dataset than I do.

MarkW
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 7, 2015 11:25 am

Any result that you disagree with is not significant.
Gotcha.

Reply to  philincalifornia
April 8, 2015 3:23 pm

Dr Mears has accepted that his data show no trend for the best part of two decades. Mr Twin-Otter doesn’t accept what Dr Mears accepts, on the basis that the data are “noisy”. Given that the data are constrained across quite a narrow interval, there is not so much noise as stochastic behavior across that interval. But there is no trend. Taking the mean all five datasets, there is a trend over the same period, but one cannot even begin to calculate any “statistical significance” – a questionable concept at the best of times – until one has first made allowance for the measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties, which in the terrestrial datasets are about a sixth of a Celsius degree. If the warming is less than that, then we do not even know that there has been warming at all, and if the warming is greater than that, then we know only that the fraction of warming beyond the measurement uncertainties may have occurred.
The problem is that on any and all datasets there has been so little warming that all one can really say is that the rate of warming is half of the rate predicted by the IPCC with what it called “substantial confidence” in 1990.

April 6, 2015 7:33 am

It is not a ‘pause’ it is an apex, climate N. Atlantic will be on downhill soon, Arctic ice will be first to move, Northern Hemisphere is heading for significant cooling.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.gif
Want to know more go HERE

TRBixler
Reply to  vukcevic
April 6, 2015 8:14 am

Vuk
Unfortunately I suspect that you are right. I prefer the warmth. Although I suspect that California will be warm but a little drier than usual.

Reply to  TRBixler
April 6, 2015 8:35 am

Natural variability will be the next big thing, subpolar gyre slowing down (cooling in another words), even the new NASA’s climate change supremo may have seen something in it, didn’t despatch my comment to the bore hole, as he often does.

Reply to  TRBixler
April 6, 2015 12:19 pm

slightly OT, bastardi webcast this weekend mentions CA should have above average precip for a few months then right back to dry if I read/listened correctly.

Menicholas
Reply to  TRBixler
April 6, 2015 3:07 pm

“It is not a ‘pause’ it is an apex, climate N. Atlantic will be on downhill soon”
For future reference, this is my suspicion as well.
You all might know who I am by then
Worrisome…that big hot thing in the sky seems to be having a cycle-thingy.
Cheers

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  TRBixler
April 7, 2015 1:23 am

Don’t you know who you are then?

Reply to  vukcevic
April 6, 2015 8:33 am

“Global temperatures, ocean-based teleconnections, and solar variances interrelate with each other. A team of mathematicians (Tsonis et al., 2003, 2007), led by Dr. Anastasios Tsonis, developed a model suggesting that known cycles of the Earth’s oceans – the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, El Niño (Southern Oscillation), and the North Pacific Oscillation – all tend to synchronize with each other. The theory is based on a branch of mathematics known as Synchronized Chaos. The model predicts the degree of coupling to increase over time, causing the solution to “bifurcate”, or split. Then, the synchronization vanishes. The result is a climate shift. Eventually the cycles begin to synchronize again, causing a repeating pattern of warming and cooling, along with sudden changes in the frequency and strength of El Niño events. They show how this has explained the major shifts that have occurred including 1913, 1942, and 1978. These may be in the process of synchronizing once again with its likely impact on climate very different from what has been observed over the last several decades.”
From Relationship of Multidecadal Global Temperatures to Multidecadal Oceanic Oscillations:
Joseph D’Aleo and Don Easterbrook, September 2011
http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm#D%27Aleo-Easterbrook

Reply to  Andres Valencia
April 6, 2015 9:15 am

Hi
I have read the Tsonis et al., not sure that I fully understand all the works. According to some of my simple calculations, there is temporary and fundamental natural synchronisation, followed by 100-200 years of warm climate in the N. Hemisphere. Encouraged by Dr. J.Curry I have looked at two major processes: atmospheric pressure system the NAO and SST in the N. Atlantic (I am not very familiar with the Pacific), they run as two separate cycles and isn’t good news; back extrapolating the cycles it shows that the synchronisation happened at around 990AD and the last one around 1860.
Dr Norman Page, a WWUT commentator often mentions 900 year cycle, I usually didn’t pay much attention to it, then Steinhilber & Beer apparently found it in the reconstruction of the solar irradiance, and Chinese scientists in the Dongge cave stalagmites deposits. I could guess why, but that would be even more controversial than the link I posted above. For now I’ve got enough problems with Dr. Svalgaard as it is.

Reply to  Andres Valencia
April 6, 2015 9:26 am

typo:
the last one around 1880

Reply to  vukcevic
April 6, 2015 9:22 am

Thank you for that Mr Vukcevic, I would think that the Sun has more effect on the climate than 100 extra molecules of CO2 per million in the atmosphere. The graph coincided with colder weather during the solar minimum when Dickens was writing about very cold winters in London, in the 1970’s when I remember the colder weather and in the last 3 or 4 years. Your graphs certainly fit in with actual events, rather than beliefs..

Reply to  andrewmharding
April 6, 2015 9:33 am

Mr. Harding
Thanks, your comment is appreciated.

Resourceguy
Reply to  vukcevic
April 6, 2015 9:24 am

Not sure what Sun-Earth stands for but the AMO is the key and its irregular and long cycles apparently keep the policy fraud and failed models going for now. The truth is catching up slowly in the absence of definitive model replacement and acceptance. The old saying from Edward Markey is still on hold for this one as the final excuse—“Who could have known?”

Reply to  Resourceguy
April 6, 2015 9:53 am

for Sun – Earth graph see HERE detailed explanation .

Reply to  vukcevic
April 6, 2015 3:31 pm

Dear Vukcevic, very interesting material (!!) thank you. i hope i will understand i all…
Kind Regards, Frank

Reply to  Frank Lansner
April 6, 2015 4:07 pm

Mr. Lansner , thank you.

Reply to  vukcevic
April 6, 2015 7:31 pm

Are you saying that your Sun-Earth/AMO graph tracks climate’s “natural variability” (which is conveniently and popularly invoked whenever the models disagree with observations)? Or is it something else entirely?

Reply to  opluso
April 7, 2015 12:19 am

It is something else entirely (see HERE , but happens to be coincidental with the AMO.
It is important to point (although Mann & co think that AMO has been going for at least 1000 years at the same rate) that this relationship must eventually break down sooner or later.

Reply to  vukcevic
April 7, 2015 3:04 pm

Number of comments, and I hope few more readers who didn’t comment.
Thank you all.

Dimetry
April 6, 2015 7:35 am

Excellent article. Thank you.
I love looking at the real trend line. My thought has been for some time that we are actually cooling due to the sun cycles. We peaked in 1998 and though it can be argued that the “average” is gradually (very gradually) rising it is thus far clear that taken from the peak in 98 during the great el-nino we are indeed cooling. We’re on the downhill side, but just as with any stock chart that has peaked there will be subsequent less-high rises such as in 2010 before further falling off. It will be interesting to see if it is even close this year with the el-nino to 1998 or 2010. I predict it will be slightly lower than 2010.

Paul Westhaver
April 6, 2015 7:35 am

Holy Smokes Lord Chris! THAT was a mouthful! Great post.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
April 6, 2015 9:35 am

Sorry for the length of the technical note, but explaining in detail how what look like very simple graphs are in fact carefully derived and plotted does head off much of the criticism that the graphs have been cherry-picked, etc.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 6, 2015 11:30 am

Lord Chris,
Your apology is well received for its cordial intent, but as you know the verbose is preferred considering the sad state of science with researchers using cartoons and punch lines in lieu of proper presentation. I will hobble through the detail out of respect for you and the discipline of science. THANKS!

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 6, 2015 7:49 pm

At the very least, if your efforts are to be considered a cherry pick by others, then at least you have made a valid cherry pick with a full explanation of how and why. The phrase “cherry pick” has become a prominent weapon for the warmists, despite that in their usage of the word it loses any meaning. If harryo could reply with an explanation of why there is no meaning or validity to your post then he would have an argument. He utters the phrase “cherry pick” as if that is all that needs to be said to refute another,s work.

MarkW
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 7, 2015 10:24 am

As near as I can determine, “cherry picking” has been redefined to mean, choosing any dates that do not support the warmist position.

Eliza
April 6, 2015 7:36 am

It is very very likely that C02 has no effect whatsoever on atmospheric or surface temperatures due to negative feedback. Also as I recall during glaciations C02 was 3000ppm or more? I really do not understand why everybody including skeptics keep on harping about C02 analysis ect.

Scott
Reply to  Eliza
April 6, 2015 10:12 am

“I really do not understand why everybody including skeptics keep on harping about C02 analysis ect.” It’s because there is a political movement to reduce CO2 emissions and the actions taken by politicians toward that end have a very real impact on people.

Reply to  Scott
April 6, 2015 3:00 pm

Eliza’s recollection is correct. During the Neoproterozoic era, CO2 concentration was at least 30% of the atmosphere (750 million years ago). Now, to the nearest tenth of one per cent, there isn’t any.

Reply to  Eliza
April 7, 2015 10:11 am

When ever I see a note about 3000 ppm or 30%, I have to recall one of my biggest puzzles. Yes, 3% or 30% —- of what total atmospheric pressure?
An astounding amount of CO2 was taken out of the air an sequestered by the Carboniferous Forests 300 million years ago. Even more CO2 is currently sequestered in carbonate reefs and limestone deposits formed over the past half a billion years. If even a portion of that carbon existed as CO2, then we must be looking at an atmosphere of 2-5 bar in the Paleozoic.

April 6, 2015 7:42 am

What kind of scientist uses the word ” pooh-pooh ” ?

Akatsukami
Reply to  Mick
April 6, 2015 7:52 am

The kind that realizes that alarmist claims are indeed poo and more poo.

Reply to  Mick
April 6, 2015 7:53 am

“Crapologist”?

MichaelS
Reply to  Mick
April 6, 2015 7:53 am

Dr. Winnie Wong-Ng
(NIST) Functional Properties Group,
Research Chemist, Ceramics Division

Louis
Reply to  MichaelS
April 6, 2015 9:52 am

And a scientist named Christopher.

Bohdan Burban
Reply to  Mick
April 6, 2015 9:19 am

“What kind of scientist uses the word ” pooh-pooh ” ?”
A coprolitologist …

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Mick
April 6, 2015 2:39 pm

Mick
April 6, 2015 at 7:42 am
What kind of scientist uses the word ” pooh-pooh ” ?
One with a knowledge of children’s fiction?

April 6, 2015 7:42 am

Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. It is as simple as that.”
And, even during a relatively flat atmospheric temperature period, we have had numerous changes in climate: less tornadic activity in the US, less hurricane activity in the North Atlantic, drought in California, severe cold in northeastern US, and more.
It might make one think that atmospheric temperature isn’t the driving force in a changing climate, wouldn’t it?

MichaelS
April 6, 2015 7:44 am

The heat has gone deep into the earth’s core. You know, it’s now several million degrees down there.
/sarc

Reply to  MichaelS
April 6, 2015 7:48 am

Shouldn’t that be “several million degrees plus 0.5 C”?

MichaelS
Reply to  JohnWho
April 6, 2015 8:13 am

Well, if anyone can nail down a million to within 0.5°C, it’s our saviors in the CAGW camp.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 6, 2015 1:15 pm

Good catch

whiten
Reply to  JohnWho
April 7, 2015 6:08 am

@MichaelS
Actually, is not impossible to consider hypothically such a measurement as possible, even when the numbers involved are to impossible to work out if the method was a direct way to measure it.
But if the main cause of climate change happens to be the very variation of that very energy that is expressed in millions of degrees, then no mater how small that variation is, no matter how undetectable by direct measurements it could still be measured by its impact in the climate and atmosphere.
For example, if the full climate swing is at about 3C then compensating for CO2 warming, then the main cause of climate change will be associated with about of 2.4C of that swing, meaning that if that is due to the variation mentioned above, then we can see how much that variation is.
It will be an extremely small change, impossible to even contemplate it as real or measurably by any direct means, unless looking at its impact in the atmosphere. But still possible to be measured if it happens to be the main cause of climate change.
Please do not jump the gun, is only an hypothical argument showing or trying to show that some times even the most impossible may be somehow still contemplated as possible, at least hypothically…….:-)
cheers

whiten
Reply to  JohnWho
April 7, 2015 6:27 am

Please do consider the obove error “hypothically” as meaning and corrected to “hypothetically”.
Thanks 🙂 .
Cheers

Travis Casey
April 6, 2015 7:44 am
Dimetry
Reply to  Travis Casey
April 6, 2015 7:48 am

Well then it is clear we should begin to call it the “great GREAT el-nino” of 2015! 😉

April 6, 2015 7:50 am

It is wrong to analyze the data like this, one must make adjustments to the data first. Now if you’d have made those adjustments then you’d know it’s worse than we thought. Brazil has already boiled over.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Jared
April 6, 2015 8:06 am

I believe NOAA does adjust the Argo data

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
April 6, 2015 8:08 am

Everything you need to know about Argo data
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Argo_date_guide.html

Alan the Brit
April 6, 2015 8:00 am

Excellent post, Lord Monkton.
I think this sentence would read much better;
“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.”
Like this;
“There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more “corrupt & adulterated” descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”
AtB

MarkW
April 6, 2015 8:03 am

“the temperature increase that usually accompanies an el Niño will come through after a lag of four or five months”
Another possibility is that temperatures would actually be falling, except for the El Nino.

FTOP
Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 8:15 am

Bingo!!

Kenny
Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 9:27 am

Agreed!

April 6, 2015 8:18 am

Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
This is an excellent post.
I think the current weak El Niño is a Niño Modoki; this may be the reason why it has not yet affected global temperature. The warm water from the west is not coming to the equatorial east Pacific Ocean, but to the northeastern Pacific Ocean.

Reply to  Andres Valencia
April 6, 2015 3:01 pm

We’ll need Bob Tisdale’s expertise to tell us whether this is a Modoki.

JimS
April 6, 2015 8:25 am

The climate alarmists had such high hopes for the 2014/15 El Nino to boost the global temperatures to “another” record high. Imagine, depending on natural cycles to warm the Earth, when we still have all that CO2 pouring into the atmosphere doing squat.

Reply to  JimS
April 6, 2015 9:49 am

JimS, did you not get the e-mail? 2015 has already been declared the hottest year on record as has 2016 and 2017. Get with the program!

April 6, 2015 8:41 am

The solar activity driven millennial temperature cycle peaked in 2003 since when the earth has been in a cooling trend.See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
This general cooling trend ( modulated by the 60 year and other solar periodicities ) will last until the depths of a future LIA at about 2650.- followed by a 350 +/- year warming to another millennial peak at about 3000.
For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural 1000 and 60 year periodicities in the temperature data see.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
There is about a 12 year lag between the solar driver peaks and the temperature peaks.
The shop drop in solar activity seen in Fig 13 in 2005-6 should result in a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018.
The solar activity peak corresponding to the 2003 temperature peak is seen in Fig 14 at about 1991.

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
April 6, 2015 9:19 am

Hi
I just mentioned your name, see my comment above at April 6, 2015 at 9:15 am

Reply to  vukcevic
April 6, 2015 9:55 am

Vuk Hi . The climate models on which the entire Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale.
The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted.
The 960 +/- and 60 year cycles are obvious in the temperature proxy time series. It is equally trivially obvious that we are just approaching, just at, or just past the latest millennial peak. The neutron monitor and Ap index data show clearly that we are now on the downslope. The simplest, most conservative, assumption is that the general trends from 1000 – 2000 will likely repeat from 2000 – 3000. In other words climate forecasting is really fairly simple and straight forward given a modicum of common sense, a proper perspective of the time scales of the various periodicities involved and a reasonably wide background knowledge of the various temperature and solar driver related time series.

JimS
Reply to  Dr Norman Page
April 7, 2015 8:15 am

Dr Page:
But have we really peaked in warming even now according to the 1,000 year cycle? Is it not possible that there is a century or more to go within a warming trend?

Reply to  JimS
April 7, 2015 8:54 am

Jim S Check Figs 5-9 and 13-14 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The length of the millennial cycle could certainly vary say between 960 and 1020 years. But we decide where we are now with regard to the solar driver peak by looking at the recent solar activity data. The activity peak ( low neutron count) seems to be very clearly at about 1991 ( Fig 14)
Then note the unusual drop in the Ap index in Fig 13 at 2005-6. . My suggestion is that there should be a notable cooling from present levels in about 2017 2018- we will see.
The recent decline in solar activity matches well with what we might expect after the peak of a millennial cycle.I would say that it is more likely than not that we are past the peak.see
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
The 2003 temperature peak corresponds to the activity peak at 1991.

Ralph Kramden
April 6, 2015 8:55 am

I’m a believer in “pay for performance”. I think the IPCC funding and salaries should be tied to the accuracy of their projections.

RH
Reply to  Ralph Kramden
April 6, 2015 9:31 am

Unfortunately, the IPCC has already analyzed its own performance and determined that their performance was so extra accurate that they should give themselves a raise.

Reply to  Ralph Kramden
April 6, 2015 9:52 am

Guy goes in to talk to his boss.
Employee: “I need a raise.”
Boss: “OK, we will pay you what you are worth”.
Employee: “Are you nuts? I can’t work for free!”

Brandon Gates
Reply to  markstoval
April 7, 2015 12:44 am

Excellent.

Old Goat
April 6, 2015 9:21 am

No pause, merely a cessation – like the “pauses” in previous Ice Ages, and Interglacials.

F. Ross
April 6, 2015 9:25 am

“18 years 4 months – and counting”
…but, but, but,
:–)

MarkW
Reply to  F. Ross
April 6, 2015 11:56 am

We already had a long discussion regarding “pooh, pooh”, we don’t need another.

April 6, 2015 9:29 am

A good article and a good discussion of data. I particularly like the use of Zeta Joules ( instead of 2*10^23 Joules which is only good for obfustication) and the simultaneous conversion to hundredths of a degree K.
The ocean warming, if ARGO is right, is equivalent to just 0.02 Cº decade–1, or 0.2 Cº century–1 equivalent.
It if is right is an important caveat. As insignificant a rise as it appears to be, 0.022 deg C in 11 years, compared to an unstated uncertainty and error bar, it appears to be steeper than other charts I’ve seen recently.
My blood boils every time I see the Levitus charts. Prior to 2003, OHC was so poorly sampled in time, area and depth as to be unknowable. I view it as an exercise in plotting your line, then plotting your data. It is a political document, not a scientific one. Given the poor source of temperature data prior to 1990, there is no reason to expect the ARGO data trend to match the Levitus trend —- unless ARGO data is adjusted in processing to agree. But that’s just a crazy conspiracy theory — why would anyone adjust ARGO?

MarkW
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
April 6, 2015 11:59 am

Given the accuracy of the Argo probes, and the fact that the number and placement of the probes comes nowhere close to being adequate, 0.02C is close enough to random noise as to be indistinguishable from it.

Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 3:04 pm

MarkW is correct. We simply don’t have good enough resolution to tell whether the ocean is warming or not. The rate of warming shown by ARGO (and even then only after the ever-upward adjustment that is the feature of almost all current temperature datasets on land or sea) is not distinguishable from the measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties.

Menicholas
Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 3:16 pm

Do the Argos probes even measure to that resolution?
From High School on, I would have received a big fat zero for reporting a result to more significant figures that my least accurate measurement.
And rightly so.

Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 3:32 pm

Whether the 0.02 degrees are significant or not, Argo agrees with RSS and UAH that there is no cause for alarm concerning the rate of global warming. It really doesn’t matter whether we a tiny bit of warming or none at all.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 4:34 pm

Menicholas; I believe the resolution of the Argos probes is 0.1C.

Chuck L
Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 5:41 pm

I believe that the ARGO data has been “adjusted” at least once and am cynical enough to believe that there will be additional “adjustments” forthcoming since we all know the extra heat is hiding deep in the ocean and a 0.02 per decade increase is not scary enough

Menicholas
Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 6:06 pm

Thank you Mark. So, if so, that puts at upper limit on the reliability of the result, assuming perfect calibration.
But then there is the issue of sparsely scattered probes in a very big and three dimensional ocean, with different temperatures at every location and depth, and with currents and such constantly stirring the pot.
And so taking a snapshot in time, all by itself seems like a problematic observation, no?
I am wondering if is perhaps akin to try and get an average value for the overall stock markets of the world by sampling of some of the stocks, but not all at the same moment?
Considering the thermal density of water, this would seem to make the problem of estimating the heat content of the troposphere by looking at the adjusted, smoothed, and homogenized surface data look simple by comparison.

Phlogiston
Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2015 12:10 am

There is some evidence in recent papers (Douglass etc) that apparent recent upper ocean warming may be at the expense of ocean bottom cooling ie zero sum game vertical heat redistribution. In terms of the ocean’s dominance of the global heat budget, it is easier to conceptualise the ocean’s huge thermal capacity as a negative heat dimension ie cold. Most ocean water is very cold. Vertical ocean mixing globally integrated is probably the dominant mechanism of climate change. It’s like a cold hand from below that can snatch away our temporary interglacial heat any time it wants. (Under the influence of weak nonlinear astrophysical / Milankovich forcing of course.)

Patrick B
April 6, 2015 9:30 am

I note that Figure T1 continues the game of showing model output looking like it was accurate for decades and only “recently” failed. Of course what Figure T1 lacks is a bright line for the date the models were run – sometime after 2008. That would highlight the fact the graph is mostly showing hindcasting and not projections.

TYoke
Reply to  Patrick B
April 6, 2015 2:52 pm

+1.

Reply to  Patrick B
April 6, 2015 9:28 pm

I agree, that should be added. That hindcasting should not ever be forgotten.

RWturner
April 6, 2015 9:31 am

And if tropospheric temperatures aren’t showing an increase during two El Nino years then the hiatus is likely a peak in temperatures and the cooling phase will be evident in just a few years. The CAGW ship is on fire and the rats will either jump ship or go down with it.

MarkW
Reply to  RWturner
April 6, 2015 12:01 pm

You can also throw in the fact that the current solar cycle has started on it’s down slope.

trafamadore
April 6, 2015 9:41 am

I was wondering, does the IPCC have any models for the temperature of the troposphere? Because then you would not have an apples to oranges comparison.

Reply to  trafamadore
April 6, 2015 2:27 pm

Yes. The CMIP5 models have at least 20, and many use 30, atmospheric grid layers up to TOA. IPCC uses the surface layer T. The other layers exist for comparison to UAH and RSS. But there is no big thing learned by doing so; the divergence between modeled and observed temperature exists not just in satellite data, but also GISS, NCDC, BEST, and HadCruT. Only slight differences in how long indistinguishable from 0. The upper troposphere layers of CMIP5 are where the mythical tropical teoposphere hotspot resides, that does not exist observationally. Another falsification.

AJB
Reply to  trafamadore
April 6, 2015 4:09 pm

You might like to consider this:
http://s1.postimg.org/poncdd4kv/Vert_Obs.jpg

Reply to  trafamadore
April 7, 2015 2:05 pm

In response to trafamadore, the lower troposphere and surface trends are very, very similar. Phil Jones, at a climate conference I helped to organize in Cambridge in 2011, reported that his HadCRUT3 dataset (as it then was) produced a trend line almost identical to the two satellite trend lines since 1979. The mean of the two satellite trends and the HadCRUT surface trend from 1979-2014 are 0.47 and 0.57 K respectively. Not a lot in it.

ulriclyons
April 6, 2015 9:46 am

“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.”
Which is irrelevant to rates of forcing of the climate as it starts on a cold AMO and ends on a warm AMO, which also means going from wet continental interiors to dry continental interiors. That’s why there is such a large temperature divergence between surface and satellite measurements, that divergence does not exist between SST’s and the lower troposphere over the oceans, though it is apparent with land only UAH. The warming of global SST’s is around 0.57°C per century, and warming trends with respect to AMO modes don’t seem to show any particular acceleration of warming rates in the latter part of last century.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1900/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1910/to:1975/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1945/to:2010/trend

April 6, 2015 9:50 am

“Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates 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.”
RSS produces a data product. That data product is the output of a MODEL and various adjustments.
The scientist who produces this data argues that it is less reliable that surface products.
Most notably RSS ADJUSTS its data based on a GCM.
Lets start with the paper.
http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JTECH_2009_MSU_AMSU_construction.pdf
“In this paper, we describe the procedures we have used
to merge data from the newer AMSU instruments with
data from the earlier MSU instruments. This merging
procedure is complicated by 1) the slightly different observation
frequencies and bandwidths used by the two
instruments that lead to slightly different weighting functions
for the same viewing geometry and 2) the discovery of spurious trends in the differences between satellite
pairs during the period of AMSU operation. In section 2,
we provide more details about the two instruments, focusing
on their differences. In section 3, we describe the
spurious trends we find in the differences for AMSU
channels 5 through 9 between measurements made by
the NOAA-15 and NOAA-16 satellites and argue that
NOAA-16 is the source of these trends. In section 4, we
describe the method we have used to merge measurements
from MSU channels 2, 3, and 4 with measurements
from the corresponding AMSU channels 5, 7, and 9. In
section 5, we present the results of our procedures.”
“The challenge presented by these apparent drifts is
that we have no absolute temperature references in the
upper air that would make it possible for us to unambiguously
decide which instrument is producing data
that is closer to the truth. We have concluded that radiosonde
datasets are not suitable for this task, given the
possibility of large errors at high altitude (Lanzante
et al. 2003; Randel and Wu, 2006; Sherwood et al. 2005),
and datasets based on GPS measurements (e.g., Ho
et al. 2007) do not have a sufficient number of samples
early in the overlap period. We instead check the
internal consistency of the data from each AMSU
instrument, similar to the method used by Fu and
Johanson (2005) to evaluate different MSU datasets.
The measurements, and in particular interannual-scale
changes, should be consistent both between nearby
channels and between nadir and limb measurements
for the same channel.”
“tant steps here.
For the near-nadir view subsets (MSU2_N5 and
AMSU5_N12), each observation is adjusted to correspond
to the nadir view so that the difference between
measurements at different incidence angles is diminished,
thereby reducing sampling noise in the final
product.1 This adjustment also removes the small effects
of changes in the incidence angle due to variations in
both the earth’s radius of curvature and in orbital
height, and thus the effects of orbital decay. The adjustment
is made using simulated brightness temperatures
calculated from a National Centers for Environmental
Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis–based atmospheric
profile climatology (Kalnay et al. 1996; Mears et al.
2003).”
“A second important correction accounts for drifts in
local measurement time, which can alias any diurnal
cycle into the long-term time series if it is not corrected.
Using 5 yr of hourly output from the NCAR Community
Climate Model (CCM3) climate model (Kiehl et al.
1996), we created a diurnal climatology for MSU channels
2–4 and AMSU channels 5, 7, and 9 as a function of
earth location, time of day, time of year, and incidence
angle using the methods described in Mears et al.
(2002). This diurnal climatology was then used to adjust
each measurement so that it corresponds to local noon.
The adjustments are largest for MSU2 and AMSU5
because of the contribution of surface emission to these
channels. Surface emission can have a large diurnal
signal, particularly in arid land regions. These regions
dominate the global average of the MSU2 and AMSU5
adjustments. “

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 6, 2015 10:52 am

Mr Mosher, that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

leafwalker
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 6, 2015 1:34 pm

Overruled!

Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 6, 2015 3:07 pm

In answer to Mr Mosher, taking the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets gives results similar to the mean of the three long-standing terrestrial datasets. RSS tends to run cool; UAH tends to run hot. But the warming rate, whichever way one looks at it, is simply nowhere close to what the IPCC predicted in 1990 and in 2005: see figs. 2-3. If Mr Mosher wishes to produce graphs of other datasets, he is of course free to do so. Or he can wait for my next six-monthly update on the five principal datasets.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 6, 2015 5:01 pm

It appears to me that Mr Mosher is simply pointing out that RSS numbers result from using a model, which are so detested on this site.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 6, 2015 8:55 pm

Not all models are detested. Just ones that have been proven to be inaccurate.

richard
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 6, 2015 11:10 am

The WMO flag up that Africa needs 5000 temps stations, At the moment land based ones that are used on that continent are very far and few between and in Urban areas. THe WMO have a weighting system for how long a station has been active and it location, For Urban sitings they give a Zero. For a country that is one fifth of the worlds land mass not a good start!! Looks like the dreaded estimations are used big time. Even i can salaami temps up fractions of a degree each year.

george e. smith
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 6, 2015 11:22 am

Well after reading through the “author’s” objections to his own data, all I can say is that he has made the most compelling argument, for simply reporting the actual readings of his instruments, and not adjusting anything.
It seems as if the author is arguing for a hook and ladder truck with a third driver in the middle of the vehicle to correct the steering mistakes of the other two.
One of the advantages of a “fossil record” is that unlike human data reporting, the fossil record simply records what happened, and not someone’s opinion of what happened.
Just to report on one simple fact from the fossil record. Notwithstanding anything you may have read to the contrary, it is quite true, that Charlie Deans DID score a try which would have given the 1905 All Blacks a perfect lossless record.
But the referee on the day DID call, based on what he saw; and in any case, the Welsh team played a better game anyway, so they deserved the win, even though it was a mistake.
Now back to your regular program.
g

Reply to  george e. smith
April 6, 2015 12:53 pm

Thanks, Mr Mosher
Note that up to now nobody has objected to your post with this useful information. Not that it’s particularly contentious, but it is a part of the story that the majority of denizens don’t think about very much, if at all.. Usually, your one-liners just bring out the worst in some of the commenters here, and I can perhaps see why. Realise you suffer fools not gladly, but try to see that we are all human beings. Let’s hope in future we can keep the debate within reasonable tramlines!
Seems to me quite reasonable, since there are no absolute figures to call upon, that some aspects of GCMs should be used to calibrate (is calibrate the proper word here?) the adjustments for orbital variations that RSS uses, as long as the basis is not changed over time. Agreed all the temp. datasets have intrinsic problems, but the satellites at least have the potential to present the least recorder-influenced data. I take it your view is different on that?

Reply to  george e. smith
April 6, 2015 2:46 pm

Yes.
Now everyone can see that Monkton prefers and recommends a dataset that has been ADJUSTED using a GCM.
basically, on one had he criticizes GCMs and on the other hand relies entirely on a dataset that has been adjusted by a GCM.

AJB
Reply to  george e. smith
April 6, 2015 5:27 pm

“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).”
“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.”
“Now everyone can see that Monkton prefers and recommends a dataset that has been ADJUSTED using a GCM. Basically, on one had he criticizes GCMs and on the other hand relies entirely on a dataset that has been adjusted by a GCM.”
Good grief. Lew paper urgently required on the Mosher Stokes Daedal Indignation Syndrome.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  george e. smith
April 6, 2015 9:39 pm

Twice this week, I’ve encountered U.S. blog threads mentioning the Welsh team and the All Blacks. Not the same game or year mind you, but minor serendipity. Not so many folks here in the States know what a ‘try’ is. More’s the pity.

Reply to  george e. smith
April 6, 2015 10:32 pm

Mr Mosher says I criticise general-circulation models. In the head pisting, in figs. 2-3, I merely report the startling divergence between models’ predictions and observed temperatures. My oaoer at Scibull.com examines some of the reasons why the models are over-predicting warming by double.

whiten
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 7, 2015 6:58 am

Thank you Mosher, I love GCMs generally……hopefully that is something we have in common, hopefully 🙂
Cheers

glenncz
April 6, 2015 9:57 am

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers.

But how did they measure tenths of a degree? I don’t recall but I read that reliable digital thermometers with compact batteries were not in use until the early 1980’s.
Where I live today the temperature swing has been 30 degrees in 5 hrs. how big of a mercury thermometer would you have needed in 1985 that had 300 gradients on it to measure in 10ths of a degree? Did that type of super accurate mercury thermometer ever even exist? Or were just temp.’s rounded off to whole number or to half numbers?
Then we have the problem of coverage. And urban heat effect. And proper coverage in the oceans, or in politically troubled countries. To think that these land based system can measure the “global temperature” to a tenth or couple tenths of a degree 40 or 50 yrs ago is absurd!

MarkW
Reply to  glenncz
April 6, 2015 12:04 pm

Regardless of what they measured, the data was recorded to the nearest degree C.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 12:06 pm

I should add that they used the standard issue, Mark One eyeball to do the extrapolating as well.

richard
Reply to  glenncz
April 6, 2015 2:15 pm

GISS estimate up to 1200 from a temp stations, what they don’t take into account is the vast changes in landscape and the effect on temps.
As the MET flag up in an area of 20 miles-
If we compare the climate statistics for three locations in Devon, one upland and the other two coastal,
namely Princetown, Plymouth and Teignmouth, each only 20 miles apart, you would think that the climate
of these three locations would be very similar. However, looking at the statistics below, you can see that their
climates are quite different. The reason for this is due, in the main, to the altitude and their proximity to the
prevailing wind of these locations. Princetown, high up on Dartmoor, is at an altitude of 453 metres above
mean sea-level, whereas Plymouth is 50 metres and Teignmouth is only 3 metres above mean sea-level.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/9/Fact_sheet_No._14.pdf
Add in changes in landscapes that have happened over the last , 5, 10, 20, 30…. years,

Reply to  glenncz
April 6, 2015 2:33 pm

Nobody claims knowledge of the global average to 1/10ths or 1/100ths.
A global average is simply a prediction of the temperature at unsampled locations.

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 6, 2015 4:38 pm

If you don’t know what the earth’s temperature was to a 1/10th C, then how can anyone claim with certainty that the earth has warmed by 0.5C?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 6, 2015 8:56 pm

When did we start using predictions as empirical data. We have theories based on predictions and fact based on empirical data.
Empirical data is still the gold standard of the scientific method. Predictions are for those that follow old mother sheppard . Satellites provide empirical data, therefore more reliable. Ignore the land based data sets they contain artifacts and facsimiles.

ulriclyons
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 7, 2015 5:44 am

“Ignore the land based data sets they contain artifacts and facsimiles.”
No need to ignore them as such, rather explain why they are warming faster, and use SST’s instead as they show no divergence with UAH.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 7, 2015 8:39 am

Mick.
It’s simple see any book on spatial stats. When you
“average ” temperature what you are really doing is predicting what the temperature is at unsampled locations.

Solomon Green
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 8, 2015 4:36 am

For “prediction” read “guess”.

Reply to  glenncz
April 6, 2015 3:08 pm

Fitzroy baroms were scaled in tenths of a Fahrenheit degree a couple of centuries ago.

Menicholas
Reply to  glenncz
April 6, 2015 3:22 pm

Then there are those “adjustments”. How many times and for what reasons?
Seems we never hear the whole story in one discussion.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Menicholas
April 7, 2015 12:50 am

It’s a long story.

Winnipeg Boy
April 6, 2015 9:58 am

A very subtle change in some of the material quoted that I predicted would happen. Figure T3. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, etc., in 2012, from Le Quéré et al.
First it was Co2 emmissions, then recently it was CO2 and cement production and now….CO2, cement production and land use.
We will soon be drip-fed this trio as if it were always there and nobody can deny. Farmers better watch out. Gov is already coming after your water rights, and will soon raise the heavy hand of taxation on your evil deed of feeding the people.

JohnGalt
April 6, 2015 10:06 am

Obviously, you’re a racist, sexist, homophobe!! 🙂

Reply to  JohnGalt
April 6, 2015 8:59 pm

I am. I cant help it.

Kenneth Glenn Koons
April 6, 2015 10:18 am

Just remember voters, with all this info, it is every, every lib Dem political official in all 50 states and of course the DNC and the WH who believe that CLIMATE and Global Warming are more dangerous to America and to the world than……the Islamofascists. That alone tells me that liberalism is just another word for INSANITY.

Fartfarr the Indefinately Prolonged
April 6, 2015 10:24 am

“RSS dataset is not a good reference since it is known to be biased. UAH has been corrected for orbital decay,”
Putting aside any bias, known or otherwise- could I ask, what would cause a satellite’s orbit to decay given that they are at an altitude of 600 miles?
I understood that that far out there was nothing to course drag, certainly not enough occasional molecules to cause any noticeable slow down in the brief time they are aloft.
(Thank you for the little cars you keep sending to Mars for us. They are great fun)

Menicholas
Reply to  Fartfarr the Indefinately Prolonged
April 6, 2015 3:26 pm

Given your title, Sir Fartfarr, it is difficult not to give your words a thorough airing and due respect.

Reply to  Fartfarr the Indefinately Prolonged
April 6, 2015 10:35 pm

Tidal forces cause orbital decay. And even above the quantum level space is not quite empty.

April 6, 2015 10:32 am

Dear Chris, thank you for dropping the “Lord” business. It only resulted disrespect from those of us who prefer democracy and equality.
Now if only you’d lose the “Brenchley” bit and the logo as well, we’d start taking you seriously.

richard
Reply to  oldfossil
April 6, 2015 11:02 am

wondering when Michael Mann is going to drop the scientist bit.

george e. smith
Reply to  oldfossil
April 6, 2015 11:33 am

Perhaps you would prefer that he didn’t use his own name. Lots of people have so little respect for their own opinions that, they will post them under some ersatz handle, to remain anonymous.
Well those folks are the experts on just what their opinions are worth !
Actually, here in the USA, we prefer a Republican form of Government to a Democracy; so much so that we charge the government to guarantee that to EVERY State in the Union. (US Constitution, Article IV, section 4 ).
Cockroaches, and termites also believe in equality.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  george e. smith
April 6, 2015 12:39 pm

Bravo, George.

MarkW
Reply to  oldfossil
April 6, 2015 12:08 pm

It really is fascinating, the lengths some people will go in order to find an excuse to ignore what they would rather not know.
As homework, look up the definition of ad hominem.

Reply to  oldfossil
April 6, 2015 3:12 pm

In response to Old Fossil, my family name is Monckton of Brenchley. Get over it. And I have never posted under the name “Lord Monckton”. And Garter King of Arms disappointed that Cluck of the Parliaments by telling him, quite bluntly, that I am entitled to combine my coronet with any heraldic device I like as long as the resultant combination has not been registered by anyone else, which it hasn’t. And, moderators please note, my peerage is off topic. The legal opinion on my peerage is available for all to read at lordmoncktonfoundation.com

Reply to  oldfossil
April 6, 2015 7:05 pm

oldfossil,
Perhaps you could lose the “we’d” bit.
If you’re all for democracy and equality, how about speaking for yourself, and let others speak for themselves?

DHR
April 6, 2015 10:40 am

Lord Monckton,
But sea level seems to continue rising. U of Colorado says it is going up at about 3 mm/year while I understand that tide gauges indicate about half of that. How much could be due to the suggested slight warming of the ocean, how much to melting land ice, if any, and how much from ??? Or perhaps the sea level measurements are a mess. Could apply yourself to that question and let us know your findings in a later blog?

MarkW
Reply to  DHR
April 6, 2015 12:10 pm

A non-trivial amount of that increase comes from the continued pumping of aquifers world wide.

Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 1:01 pm

I’d say, pretty trivial

Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 3:14 pm

In answer to DHR, I edited a paper by Prof. Niklas Moerner in 2011 under the title “Sea level is not rising”. If DHR goes to Coordinates Journal of Marine Navigation (mycoordinates.org) for November 2014, he will see quite a comprehensive article by me on sea level, showing how little sea-level rise most instruments show. The official U. of Colorado series is, alas, a fiction.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 4:40 pm

mothcatcher: Then you would be wrong.

Wun Hung Lo
Reply to  MarkW
April 6, 2015 5:00 pm

Lord Monckton’s article can be found here
http://mycoordinates.org/our-influence-on-sea-level-is-negligible/

Reply to  DHR
April 6, 2015 1:13 pm

DHR, for unknown natural reasons yhenworld has been coming out of the LIA for over two centuries. Land ice has undergone melting, most readily seen in glaciers rather than ice caps. That will cause SLR, as will thermosteric rise from warming seawater. Historic tide guages are problematic because most land does not sit still. Satellite altimetry since 1979 shows SLR has not accelerated. AGW says it should have, given the warming that began around 1975 which should have accererated land ice loss. It is another underlying failure of AGW prediction.

Reply to  ristvan
April 6, 2015 7:56 pm

Do we know how much of the estimated rise in mean sea level is accounted for by mid-ocean and unique regional changes (due to warmth or winds). Seeing the significant sea level increases in the western Pacific/eastern Indian Oceans makes me wonder how much that contributes to the “global” results.

Reply to  ristvan
April 7, 2015 4:01 am

I may have answered my own question by looking at Church, et al., (2011) which estimated tidal gauge sea level rise from 1993-2008 at 2.61 ± 0.55 (mm/yr) and tidal gauges plus satellite data at 3.22 ± 0.41 for the same period. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048794/full
Still digesting their estimates and adjustments. But as a review of the consensus, it’s pretty good.

Menicholas
Reply to  DHR
April 6, 2015 3:30 pm

Sea level? Hmmm…

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  DHR
April 7, 2015 12:49 am

In terms of effects on coastal locations, this will equal the typical UK tidal range in about a thousand years. So, unless you mean it’s an indicator of continued AGW then it has no great significance. For that matter, is this not another example of attempting to measure averages which are way below the noise floor of the system, and which therefore are of questionable reliability?

April 6, 2015 10:50 am

Below I make the case that all of the rise in the global temperature trend last century can be linked to natural variability.
From 1998-present the rise in global temperatures from the late 1970’s-1998 which was due to natural causes has turned into a temperature pause.
What were the natural causes from the late 1970’s -1998 ,that caused the global temperature trend to rise?
High to Very High Solar Activity which lasted to year 2005.
PDO to Warm Phase during late 1970’s (the great climatic shift)
Volcanic Activity early 1980’s and 1992 then only to become very quiet post 1992.
AMO to warm phase 1995.
Super El Nino in 1998, with periods of more El Nino’s versus La Nina’s from the late 1970’s -1998.
A highly zonal atmospheric circulation as reflected in NAO/AO data.
A rise in ocean heat content which correlates to the rise in solar activity. Sunspot numbers exceeding 40 which translates to warming.
Since 1998 the natural forces promoting warming( from 1978-1998) have all subsided and are presently trending toward promoting a cooler climate going forward. This should persist for the next 30+ years.

Jimrjbob
April 6, 2015 10:53 am

Key Fact No. 1 …to March 2015 rather than 2014?

Reply to  Jimrjbob
April 6, 2015 3:15 pm

Thank you to Jimrjbob for catching that one.

April 6, 2015 11:00 am

Martin Armstrong created this graphic of climate cycles and civilizations, it is Armstrong’s belief that it is the Sun that has created the warmth over the past century not humans. He created a AI economic cycles computer model that gives prediction which have been impressive. He is now working with 2 others to create a climate model based on cycles which he says will be more accurate than the 95% of other climate models that have failed.
http://i0.wp.com/armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Empires-Rise-Fall-Armstrong.jpg

Reply to  browneruss
April 6, 2015 1:03 pm

The sun may well be important, but that’s just paperback stuff. Has he done one on UFOs as well?

Reply to  mothcatcher
April 6, 2015 1:37 pm

“The sun may well be important, but that’s just paperback stuff. Has he done one on UFOs as well?”
No he has not done on on UFO’s but perhaps he should do one on retarded bloggers comments.

MarkW
Reply to  mothcatcher
April 6, 2015 4:41 pm

If you ask him nicely, maybe he’ll do one, just for you. Since it seems to be about the only thing you are capable of comprehending.

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  browneruss
April 6, 2015 6:40 pm

Pyramids of Giza built in Egypt around 2500 B.C. – wouldn’t that be considered a peak?
Rome collapsed in 700 A.D.? Rome was sacked in 410 and again in 455, never really recovering.
This is a graph of wishful thinking.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
April 6, 2015 8:58 pm

from Wikipedia…”The Eastern Empire existed as a counterpart to the Western Empire until the West’s fall in 476. Following the West’s fall, the East and West were de jure reunited as a single Empire. Following the fall of the West, the Eastern Empire would survive for another thousand years. During most of its existence, the East remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in Europe, despite setbacks and territorial losses, especially during the Roman–Persian and Roman–Arab Wars.”
We the Giza Pyramids considered to be the peak of Egypt as a civilization? Some say 2700 to 2200bc was the peak of Egyptian civilization.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  browneruss
April 6, 2015 6:41 pm

What is the scale of these temperature variations?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 6, 2015 9:06 pm

I don’t know what scale is being used by Armstrong for this chart. You could send him an email at his blog at armstrongeconomics.com His research is usually pretty careful and he has a huge following on his blog rivaling the New York Times so a few people think he knows what he is talking about. His claim to fame is his pi cycle business model which has had amazing accuracy in forecasting market turns to the day decades in advance and also his AI computer which predicted the breakup of the Soviet Union. Armstrong was named America’s top Economist by Equity Magazine about 25 years ago.
He is warning of a resumption of the Sovereign Debt crisis after Oct. 2015, this coming crisis will be much bigger than the 2008 banking crisis according to his models, the final collapse of the west should happen by 2032.95 which is the culmination of multiple important cycles in his model, he does not think the USA will survive that date.

April 6, 2015 11:09 am

https://twitter.com/tan123/status/584849140011536384
Natural versus man made ,various GHG contributions.

John Bills
April 6, 2015 11:24 am

Since 1990 the temperature fore all datasets the temperature rose 0.25C while the prediction was 0.5C.
And the warmists know.

taxed
April 6, 2015 11:24 am

l think one pointer to the cooling of the climate taking place in the NH (at least on the Atlantic side). ls if the (Arctic blast) winters North America have had in the last 2 years start to become a increasing trend. Because if this weather pattern lasts for long enough then l think it leads to a chain of events that causes major climate cooling on at least the Atlantic side of the NH.

jimheath
April 6, 2015 12:38 pm

Agenda 21 is alive and well. Global Governance is the aim and Climate change is the key, it’s as simple as that.

Reply to  jimheath
April 6, 2015 6:57 pm

I would add that Agenda 21 and ‘climate change’ are merely new fronts in the Gold War.

Peter Foster
April 6, 2015 12:44 pm

Re ARGO. It is adjusted, the raw data showed oceans were cooling see
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
Here Josh Willis, the data gatekeeper, explains how when and why he adjusted the argo data. Bear in mind that temperature is one of the seven basic SI measurements and one we can measure with considerable accuracy, so apart from making depth corrections for changes in salinity and temperature the temperature record should stand unadjusted.
Willis however noticed that the net energy flux at the top of the atmosphere showed earth was gaining energy (recent paper says that IPCC models have made fundamental error in TOA )
Then he points to the satellite sea level data (including GIA adjustments) to say that after snow and ice melt are subtracted the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion, therefore oceans must be warming.
Finally the computer models say oceans should be warming.
Combining all three of these he justified altering the temperature data to show warming consistent with the models.
Given that all three data sets he used to make this correction are themselves riddled with uncertainty, large error margins, high noise to signal ratio then his temperature data should be the start from which the other data sets are challenged.
This is a prime case of altering good data from observation, to make it match the hypothesis.
The complete opposite of the proper scientific process.

Reply to  Peter Foster
April 6, 2015 1:32 pm

PF, you don’t quite have the story right. Willis published the cooling paper, then a retraction after it wqs discovered that a number of the early ARGO floats had a cold temperature bias. See essay When Data Isn’t. He did not modify Argo data to solve the so called closure problem (SLR doe not equal the sum of estimated ice mass loss plus thermosteric rise). Three papers that attempted to calculate closure for short periods during the ‘pause’ all started from a presumption that SLR had appreciably slowed, and all had different estimates for the relative contributions. See essay Pseudo Precision. Monckton’s technical appendix is well worth a reread; ARGO is the best we have, but for many purposes still not good enough by far.

Reply to  ristvan
April 6, 2015 10:46 pm

Willis made two adjustments. Mr Istvan is talking of his adjustment to the XBT bathythermograph data. XBT preceded ARGO. He then adjusted the ARGO dara too. The first adjustment may have been justifiable. The second, not so much.

knr
April 6, 2015 12:48 pm

I think its funny that people are calling the author out for ‘cherry picking ‘ given that climate ‘science’ and CAGW claims are based on the picking of some rather ‘rotten cherries’ Mann’s infamous stick being a classic example of not just ‘rotten cherries’ but artificial ones too.

cheshirered
April 6, 2015 1:02 pm

The Guardian on Dana’s blog is now in paroxysm’s of furious angst at this development. No warming? Humanity saved? Can’t have that – think of my grant cheque! Think of Paris!

Reply to  cheshirered
April 6, 2015 1:29 pm

What Dana fails to understand is that the alarmists of the 70s who were saying that our coal burning was helping to bring on a new ice age had the better argument. After all, we are overdue for a major cooling episode and cold kills people. Cold brings starvation. Cold is brutal.
The whole bunch of rent-seekers need to get on the “new ice age” bandwagon as that will be much more salable over the next 30 years or so.

April 6, 2015 1:21 pm

Reading over the post and the comments here today I was reminded of a quote that I think all involved in the climate “debate” should read and meditate upon.

“… If a problem can be solved at all, to understand it and to know what to do about it are the same thing. On the other hand, doing something about a problem which you do not understand is like trying to clear away darkness by thrusting it aside with your hands. When light is brought, the darkness vanishes at once. This applies particularly to the problem”
― Alan W. Watts, The Wisdom of Insecurity

I think that, at present, almost everyone involved in climate “science” does not understand how our weather system works. I think we may be a generation away from even beginning again to understand it.

Reply to  markstoval
April 6, 2015 2:48 pm

Mark It is not necessary to understand how the climate system works to be able to make useful forecasts.
For forecasts of the possible timing and extent of the coming cooling using the perfectly obvious natural periodicities in the temperature time series see.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

Blue Sky
April 6, 2015 1:48 pm

What was the anomaly and was it up or down from February?

Reply to  Blue Sky
April 6, 2015 3:03 pm

February was 0.327 so it dropped to 0.255 in March for RSS. For all anomalies since 1979, see:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt

PiperPaul
April 6, 2015 2:34 pm

18 years 4 months is Numberwang!

Jai Mitchell
April 6, 2015 2:43 pm

Thoughts,
The ocean heat content graph shouldn’t have a linear trendline slashed over it, the increase from 1965 and up through to last year shows a power-law curve.
The ocean heat content analysis from the early to mid 1970’s is the closest analog to the current sulfur dioxide atmospheric loading ramp up that has taken place in South East asia over the last 10 years. China has quadrupled its air pollution. This has a large cooling effect and is likely a driver of the negative PDO in recent years.
Using UAH and RSS combined is not a useful tool, Just because “they pull in opposite directions” could simply mean that the UAH has a problem with its Diurnal drift calculation and both RSS and UAH improperly account for tropical lower stratosphere impact in the TLT channel. One can’t simply combine series and expect that the compounding errors won’t make that new combined series useful at all.
The reason that the NODC converts to zetajoules is because this is the most useful output when looking at the earth’s energy (im)balance.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Jai Mitchell
April 8, 2015 2:28 am

More empty trollery from the reverse entropists.

Fartfarr the Indefinately Prolonged
April 6, 2015 3:17 pm

Re orbitaI decay.
I wish someone could confirm this for me:
90% of the atmosphere is below you at 13 miles altitude, yes? You can see the curvature of the Earth and the atmosphere is seen as blue band against the inky void.
(Jeremy Clarkson or James May went up in an English Electric Lightning fighter of the South African Air Force and he told me.)
The ISS orbits at, what, 200 miles- and it needs the occasional nudge from the thrusters to keep it there due to orbital decay caused by drag from the wisp of atmosphere remaining even at that height.
What sort of atmospheric drag remains to act on anything at 600 miles?
Surely that far into space the vacuum is as total as anywhere else in the inner solar system?

Menicholas
Reply to  Fartfarr the Indefinately Prolonged
April 6, 2015 3:41 pm

Recall too, what happened to the Skylab station in the 1970’s, when the expansion of the outer atmosphere due to the changing solar cycle was not taken into account, and the thing crashed to Earth before steps could be taken to boost it’s orbit a nudge.
Oh, well, and least we got another chance to play that old Devo tune.

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
April 6, 2015 4:14 pm

Point being that the outer extent of the atmosphere is not static.

Reply to  Menicholas
April 6, 2015 9:10 pm

Awesome

garymount
April 6, 2015 3:31 pm

If trend lines are to have arrows, they should be at both ends.

Joe Born
April 6, 2015 3:33 pm

“The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006.”
Is that what Lord Monckton really means? Wouldn’t any thirty-three-year interval other than one having an exactly linear progression necessarily include some ten-year sub-interval whose rate is higher? What am I missing?

Fartfarr the Indefinately Prolonged
April 6, 2015 3:34 pm

[OK, enough about peerages and anything related. Stick to science. ~mod.]

taxed
April 6, 2015 3:59 pm

To understand the reasons for climate change in the past then you need to understand what the weather was doing at the time. To me the extent of the ice sheets in the last ice age gives important clues to the general weather patterns at the time. The ice sheets in North America came down from the north. Which suggests that the “Arctic blast” winters that they have had for the last two years was a common weather pattern during the ice age. But in Europe the ice sheets came across from the NE or east not from the north. This suggests over europe there was a more zonal southern tracking jet stream weather pattern with frequent blocking highs sitting over northern most europe. With the Atlantic lows running along southern and central europe providing the snow for the ice sheets to form.

Menicholas
Reply to  taxed
April 6, 2015 4:11 pm

And once there was a two mile high dome of ice, that must have created effects of it’s own, from orographic enhancement of precipitation, deflecting the jets directly, etc.
The dome itself must have altered global circulation, and perhaps did so in unknown ways.

taxed
Reply to  Menicholas
April 6, 2015 4:26 pm

Yes l think the growing ice sheets over North America was the trigger for europe sliding into the ice age. Because of the effects it would of had on the northern Atlantic and the jet stream.

April 6, 2015 4:59 pm

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
This significant to technical-minded people.
Apparently meaningless to the ‘warmist alarmists’ who live in a dream world. We were meant to be concerned about CO2 increases causing “global warming” effects that would be catastrophic to our way of life.
That “global warming” is not eventuating in the manner they assured us, what is their reaction? To blame predominately natural variations on this lack of global warming, call it ‘climate change’ due to carbon emissions.
A political excercise totally devoid of valid scientific foundation.

April 6, 2015 5:01 pm

If you take a look at past Warm Periods, then notice how there is always a limit as to how high the warming reaches before it stops warming. After that point, even if the Warm Period carries on for another century or longer there is none or very little further rise in temperature values. To my eye, all of the previous Warm Periods show this feature. In that regard, it is very unlikely that there will be any further rise in the current Warm trend, even if lasts through the rest of this century before receding into the depths of the next cooling trend. Once again, historical data should take precedence over the warmists beliefs as to what is most likely to happen over the next century.

Reply to  goldminor
April 6, 2015 10:53 pm

In answer to gold into, global temperature has been falling ever since the Holocene Climate Ootimum 10,000-6000 years ago.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 7, 2015 12:00 am

I should have added a bit more description regarding what Warm Periods I was referring to. I meant the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, and similar Warm Periods. They last several centuries, but they reach their temperature peak fairly early in their development. After their peak the warm trend may continue for another century or longer without attaining a higher peak.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 7, 2015 2:00 pm

The longest and warmest of the warm periods in the present interglacial was the Holocene climate optimum, where (aside from a dip in the middle) temperature was uniformly somewhat higher than today and showed little trend for 4000 years. However, the trend since then has been a gentle decline. Let us hope it does not become a precipitate decline any time soon. Cold is a far greater killer than warmth. Warm periods were always called “optima” for that very reason. Now, of course, it is politically incorrect to call them “optima”.

April 6, 2015 5:17 pm

Lest we forget, IPCC acknowledged in 2013 that the thermometer-based datasets show no trend from 1998-2012: “Regardless, all global combined LSAT and SST data sets exhibit a statistically non-significant warming trend over 1998–2012 (0.042°C ± 0.093°C per decade (HadCRUT4); 0.037°C ± 0.085°C per decade (NCDC MLOST); 0.069°C ± 0.082°C per decade (GISS)).” [AR5, WG1, Chapter 2, p. 194]
http://ipcc.wikia.com/wiki/152.4.3_Global_Combined_Land_and_Sea_Surface_Temperature

Ben
April 6, 2015 5:18 pm

“El Ninyo or nyot?” What does “nyot” mean? That made me laugh out loud (in Spanish, of course 😉

TheLastDemocrat
April 6, 2015 5:27 pm

MarkW sez (April 6, 2015 at 4:38 pm): “If you don’t know what the earth’s temperature was to a 1/10th C, then how can anyone claim with certainty that the earth has warmed by 0.5C?”
D’oh! That’s gonna leave a mark!

TheLastDemocrat
April 6, 2015 5:29 pm

Great post.
But there is no such thing as ” p = .000″ –when the computer spits this out, we who unerstand what is really meant need to change it to “p <0.001" –with the "p" in italics – something I do not know how to do.

neilmdunn
April 6, 2015 5:53 pm

Off topic: below is a link about the China led AIIB to combat the US control of banking. Supposedly, the AIIB will make loans to develop coal facilities.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/the-asia-bank-freakout.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29

April 6, 2015 6:41 pm

What does UAH show for the same 18 year 4 month period – sorry I couldn’t find it…?

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 7, 2015 3:54 am

In response to Mr Peterson, UAH shows 0.19 Celsius degrees of warming, which is equivalent to 1.05 Celsius per century – approximately in line with the centennial projection in Monckton et al., 2015, but about half the rate predicted by the IPCC.

April 6, 2015 7:13 pm

Either added CO2 causes no detectable warming or those evil fossil fuels just prevented a slide toward another LIA, which is a very, very good thing.
OT but I’d like to say something about CO2. Life is its enemy. Since the Cambrian explosion, the trend has inevitably been downward as limestone from sea shells and fossil fuels from plants relentlessly build up. Sure, sometimes limestone and coal get subducted and belched out in volcanoes but they can’t keep up. Man to the rescue by burning fossil fuels. It almost makes one believe in divine guidance.

KevinK
April 6, 2015 7:16 pm

So to summarize, we have; no statistically significant change in temperatures while a statistically significant change in CO2 (that bas—d evil gas) has occurred, what to think, what to conclude, well… let’s try these possible conclusions;
1) A naturally occurring process (as yet not understood) has EXACTLY offset the Man Made Global Warming for 18 years, EXACTLY within a few tenths of a degree, YEAH RIGHT…..(look a unicorn, right there behind the squirrel).
2) The “greenhouse effect” has saturated and we can reasonably assume that no future additional warming can/will/might occur….. OH HAPPY DAYS our evil nemesis has been defeated without a single blow from our swords (or windmill blades, choose your weapons wisely young climate warrior).
OR
3) The greenhouse effect is NOW a dis-proven hypothesis…..
Nah, no way it could be behind door number 3, the fancy car is always behind door #1 or door #2, always….
Cheers, KevinK.

SAMURAI
April 6, 2015 7:21 pm

The strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years occurred from 1933~1996.
When this strong string solar cycles ended in 1996, so did the global warming trend, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made just since 1996…
The PDO entered its 30-yr cool cycle in 2005, the AMO enters its 30-yr cool cycle from around 2024, the current solar cycle is the weakest since 1906, and the next solar cycle starting around 2022 is expected to be the weakest since the Maunder Minumum ended in 1715…
CO2’s paultry 2 watts/M^2 of forcing will not reverse the natural cooling factors currently in effect. CAGW erroneously overestimates CO2’s warming effect because the “runaway positive feedback loop” involving a rapid increase in water vapor isn’t happening.
Without this runaway water vapor feedback loop, CAGW projections will be off by a factor of 6~10…
CAGW is dead.

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 7, 2015 12:16 am

There is something else to note in that string of cycles. I mentioned this once before, and I still think the thought has merit. I noticed that during the intervals of the minima during those 6 cycles, the footprint of how many years the cycle stays at minimum was shorter than the minima of the 6 previous solar cycles by half approximately. During the period which you first point to the years at minimum is around 2 or less. In the previous 6 solar cycles, the minimum lasted approximately 4 years. The last minimum in 2008/09 returned to the longer minimum period of 4 years. Could it be that part of the natural warming is due to the Sun spending less years at minimum, and that cooling occurs when the minimum lasts the extra several years? In other words, 6 solar cycles of warming is then followed by 6 solar cycles of cooling. The depth of the cooling as well as the intensity of the warming would be influenced by the total current state of the climate system.

Robin.W.
April 6, 2015 9:28 pm

Lord Monckton you are my hero. Please take good care of yourself and watch your back!

AJB
April 7, 2015 12:54 am

“This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.”
1. Anomalies
2. Rates
3. Kardashian Chaos (includes CO2).
For symmetric UAH alternatives, see here.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
April 7, 2015 1:34 am

Having read most of the comments here for the past half hour, (like always) I come back to what SHOULD be said…
We don’t know.
We don’t know what dark energy is, or dark matter. We don’t actually know if dark matter actually is there at all. We don’t know if the Big Bang actually did occur. We don’t if there was sudden universal expansion three billion years after any Big Bang…or what caused it. We don’t know if there are parallel universes, how many, if they co-exist or are formed by actions. We don’t know if there are other dimensions, or how many. We don’t know if Pi repeats, or if we are living in a holographic universe. We don’t know if infinity is real.
All we know is that we will continue to kill each other based primarily on religious grounds, and that incompetent people will continue to rule our lives and tax us. Think on that while you start your day today.

Hans Berg
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
April 8, 2015 8:16 pm

“All we know is that we will continue to kill each other based primarily on religious grounds, and that incompetent people will continue to rule our lives and tax us. Think on that while you start your day today.”
Whoa. I’m new here. That’s heavy. Perhaps I shouldn’t hang around.

Reply to  Hans Berg
April 8, 2015 9:22 pm

“History Repeats because the Passions of Man Never Change” …. Machiavelli

Chris Wright
April 7, 2015 2:59 am

But hang on a minute. Last year Obama said that climate change was accelerating. He also said that scientists were surprised because there had been more warming than they expected.
Is it possible that the most powerful man in the world is confused and deluded about climate change? If so, then that is the real climate catastrophe.
Chris

Reply to  Chris Wright
April 7, 2015 5:43 am

Obama just bought a sea side mansion in Hawaii, that shows how much he is really worried about sea levels rising. Another liar at the public trough.

Chris
Reply to  browneruss
April 7, 2015 10:30 am

Why does that make him a liar? If he did buy that house that will eventually be affected by rising seas, that makes him a poor investor, not a liar.

MarkW
Reply to  browneruss
April 7, 2015 11:29 am

It shows he doesn’t believe the stuff he’s trying to sell to the rest of us.

Reply to  Chris Wright
April 7, 2015 9:56 am

Last year Obama said that climate change was accelerating.
I think it is fair to say that the Climate Change movement is accelerating — all the way into Paris 2015. Data be damned, there are Government accomplishments at stake!