# The Pause hangs on by its fingernails

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The sharp el Niño spike is just about to abolish the long Pause in global temperatures – at least for now. This column has long foretold that the present el Niño would be substantial, and that it might at least shorten if not extinguish the Pause. After all, theory requires that some global warming ought to occur.

This month, though, the Pause clings on. Though January 2016 was the warmest January in the RSS satellite record since 1979, the El Niño spike has not yet lasted long enough to end the Pause. That will happen by next month’s report. The RSS data still show no global warming for 18 years 8 months, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration over the period.

Dr Roy Spencer’s UAH v.6 satellite lower-temperature dataset shows the Pause has already (just) disappeared. For 18 years 2 months there has been barely any warming, though to two decimal places the anomaly is zero:

The believers say there was never a Pause in the first place. After many unconvincing alterations to all of the principal global surface tamperature datasets over the two years leading up to the Paris climate conference, the Pause all the datasets once showed had been erased.

Significantly, the two satellite datasets continued to show a steadily-lengthening Pause till last month, but over the past year or two, long before the present el Niño set in, the three terrestrial datasets had already succeeded in ingeniously airbrushing it away.

The not necessarily reliable Tom Karl of NOAA and the relentlessly campaigning Gavin Schmidt of NASA held a joint press conference to celebrate the grants their rent-seeking organizations can milk out of their assertion that 2015 was the warmest year since 1880. But they carefully omitted the trend-line from their graph, so I have added it back. It shows the world warming since 1880 at an unexciting two-thirds of a degree per century:

NOAA’s much-altered global surface temperature record, showing a 0.9 Cº global warming trend since 1880, equivalent to just two-thirds of a degree per century.

So here’s the Houston problem, the 13th chime, the dog that didn’t bark in the night-time, the fly in the ointment, the poop in the puree, the jumbo in the Jacuzzi – the \$64,000 question that would once have alerted true scientists to the possibility that somewhere their pet theory might have gone more than somewhat agley.

The Jumbo in the Jacuzzi

Since the satellites of both UAH and RSS show there has been very little global warming of the lower troposphere over the past decade or two, perhaps Schmidt and Karl would care to answer the following key question, which I have highlighted in red:

Schmidt and Karl, like the Met Office this side of the pond, say there has been rapid surface warming over the past 19 years. If so, where on Earth did it come from? The laws of thermodynamics are not up for repeal. The official theory is that CO2 warms the atmosphere and the atmosphere warms the surface. But for almost 19 years the satellites show that the lower atmosphere has barely warmed. Even if there had been CO2-driven warming higher up, for the official theory says we should expect a faster warming rate in the mid-troposphere than at the surface, how could that higher-altitude warming have magically reached the surface through a lower troposphere that has not warmed at all?

IPCC had predicted in 2007, on the basis of a single bad paper by Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, that the tropical mid-troposphere should warm twice or even thrice as fast as the tropical surface. However, as the revealing final slide shown by Schmidt and Karl at their press conference demonstrates, the predicted tropical mid-troposphere hot spot (I had the honor to name it) is in reality absent. Lower and mid-troposphere anomalies are almost identical:

One clue to the source of the warming reported by the surface datasets but not by the satellite datasets over the past 19 years is to be found in another revealing diagram presented by Schmidt and Karl at their presser.

About five-sixths of the areas of “record” surface warming shown in the NOAA diagram are areas of ocean, the el Niño-driven warming of the eastern equatorial Pacific being particularly pronounced.

Aside from the ocean warming, the land-based warming was prominent over Siberia and northern China, Europe and central America, inferentially owing much to urban heat-island effects.

In short, the warming of both land and oceans shows a pattern strongly confirming the satellite record to the extent that the warming – insofar as it is not a mere artefact of the surface-temperature tampering over the past couple of years – displays a pattern suggesting that it originates not from above in the atmosphere, where it would have originated if CO2 had been the cause, but at or below the surface.

On any view, the significant warming that the terrestrial datasets claim over the past two decades cannot have come from the atmosphere, and accordingly cannot have been caused by our enrichment of that atmosphere with greenhouse gases – if, that is, the satellites are correct that the lower troposphere has not been warming.

When the first temperature-monitoring satellites began to deliver data, NASA said the satellite temperature record would be more reliable than the surface record because the coverage was more complete, the method of measurement standardized and the coverage and coverage-bias uncertainties that plague the terrestrial record were absent.

Now that the satellites of both UAH and RSS have been showing so little warming for so long, expect that story to begin to change. If the satellite data are broadly correct, then either the terrestrial data are wrong owing to unjustifiable tampering or they are detecting genuine warming that may be from urban heat-island influences or from deep-ocean warming but cannot be from the atmosphere and is not caused by our sins of emission.

One way to prop up the specious, crumbling credibility of the terrestrial temperature datasets and of the CO2 panic at the same time is to attack the satellite datasets and pretend that the measurement method that NASA itself had once said was the best available is somehow subject to uncertainties even greater than those to which the terrestrial datasets are prone.

I am not the only one to sense that Dr Mears, the keeper of the RSS satellite dataset, who labels all who ask questions about the Party Line as “denialists” and in early 2016 took shameful part in a gravely prejudiced video about global temperature change, may be about to revise his dataset sharply to ensure that the remarkable absence of predicted warming that it demonstrates is sent down the memory hole.

What of ocean warming? The ARGO bathythermographs show little warming at the surface from 2004 until the current el Niño began. What is more, ARGO stratigraphy shows that the warming is generally greater with depth. The warming of the ocean, then, appears to be coming not from above, is it would if CO2 were the driver, but from below.

I should have liked to show graphs to establish that the warming is greater in the lower than in the upper strata of the 1.25-mile slab that ARGO measures. But the ARGO marine atlas is clunky and does not seem to be as compatible with PCs as it should be. So I have been unable to extract the relevant data. If anyone is able to produce complete stratum-by-stratum anomaly-and-trend plots of the ARGO data for its 12 full years in operation from January 2004 till December 2015, please let me know as soon as the December 2015 ARGO data become available. The latest monthly update is very late, as the ARGO data often are:

If the eventual data confirm what I have some reason to suspect, then a further killer question must be faced by the tamperers:

Though the Pause is gone, the problem it poses for the Thermageddonites remains. For their own theory dictates that, all other things being equal, an initial direct warming should occur instantaneously in response to radiative forcings such as that from CO2. However, for almost 19 years there was not a flicker of response from global temperatures, casting serious doubt upon the magnitude of the warming to be expected from anthropogenic influences.

To the believers, therefore, it was important that the Pause should not merely cease, for Nature is, as expected, gradually taking care of that, but vanish altogether. The need to abolish the Pause became still more urgent when at a hearing in December 2015 Senator Ted Cruz, to the great discomfiture of the “Democrats”, displayed the RSS graph showing no global warming for 18 years 9 months.

So to another killer question that Schmidt and Karl ducked at their presser, and must now face (for if they do not answer it Senator Cruz can be expected to go on asking it till he gets an answer):

The now-glaring discrepancies between prediction and reality, and between the satellite and terrestrial datasets, are plainly evident from all datasets even after the tampering. Yet until now there has been no systematic analysis to show just how large the discrepancies have become. So here goes.

In 1990, at page xxiv of the First Assessment Report, IPCC predicted near-linear global warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K over the 36 years to 2025, a rate equivalent to 2.78 [1.94, 4.17] K/century. However, in the 26 years since 1990 the reported warming rates are equivalent to only [1.59, 1.73] K/century from the terrestrial datasets (blue needles) and [1.14, 1.23] K/century from the satellites (green needles). IPCC’s 1990 central prediction, the red needle, accordingly shows almost double the warming reported by the terrestrial datasets and at least two and a half times that reported by the satellite datasets.

Somehow, the flagrant over-prediction that the discrepancy graphs of temperatures from 1990, 1995 and 2001 to today illustrate did not get a mention in the colourful material circulated to the media by the SchmidtKarlPropagandaAmt.

The models’ extravagant over-prediction becomes still more self-evident when one looks at IPCC’s next excitable prediction. In fig. 6.13 of the 1995 Second Assessment Report, IPCC predicted a medium-term warming rate of 0.38 K over 21 years, equivalent to 1.8 K per century, assuming the subsequently-observed 0.5%-per-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Here, at least, IPCC’s prediction is within shouting distance of the terrestrial temperature data, though still extravagantly above the satellite temperature data. But IPCC’s 1990 least prediction was well above its own central prediction made just five years later. IPCC’s 1990 central prediction was 50% above its 1995 prediction, and its 1990 high-end prediction was 130% above its 1995 prediction.

The reliability of IPCC’s predictions deteriorated still further in 2001. On page 8 of the Summary for Policymakers, it predicted that in the 36 years 1990-2025 the world would warm by [0.4, 1.1] K, equivalent to [1.11, 3.05] K/century, again a significant downshift compared with the interval of medium-term predictions it had made in 1990, and implying a central estimate equivalent to about 2.08 K/century (the red needle on the following temperature clock) over the 25-year period:

Three points are startlingly evident in these graphs. First, IPCC has inexorably and very substantially cut its predictions of medium-term warming since the exaggerated predictions in its First Assessment Report got the climate scam going in 1990.

Secondly, even its revised predictions are substantial exaggerations compared with observed, reported reality.

Thirdly – and this is very odd – the most basic measure of the uncertainties in temperature measurement in any time-series, which is the interval between the least and greatest reported trends on that series, has widened when most indications are that it should be narrowing.

To demonstrate that error-bars on temperature measurement should be narrowing in response to all those taxpayer dollars being flung at it, the HadCRUT4 dataset – which to Professor Jones’ great credit publishes the error-bars as well as the central estimate of observed temperature change – shows a considerable narrowing of the uncertainty interval over time, as methods of measurement become less unreliable:

The very reverse of what the HadCRUT4 dataset shows should be happening is happening. As Table 1 shows, the discrepancy between the least (yellow background) and the greatest (purple background) reported temperature change over successive periods is growing, not narrowing:

 Start date GISS HadCR4 NCEI RSS UAH Uncertainty Sat:1979 0.60 0.61 0.37 0.45 0.42 0.51 K/century K/century 1.63 1.65 1.55 1.23 1.14 AR1:1990 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.29 0.26 0.73 K/century K/century 1.73 1.59 1.66 1.11 1.00 AR2:1995 0.33 0.28 0.32 0.09 0.09 1.14 K/century K/century 1.55 1.31 1.53 0.42 0.41 AR3:2001 0.18 0.13 0.20 –0.02 0.03 1.46 K/century K/century 1.22 0.85 1.35 –0.11 0.19

Table 1: Reported (dark blue) and centennial-equivalent (dark green) temperature trends on the three terrestrial (pale green background) and two satellite (blue background) monthly temperature anomaly datasets for periods starting respectively in January of 1979, 1990, 1995 and 2001 and all ending in December 2015.

Note how, on all datasets, the warming rate declines the closer to the present one begins. This, too, is contrary to official theory, which says that the warming rate should at least remain constant given the ever-increasing anthropogenic forcings acting on the climate. It is also contrary to one of the most mendacious graphs in the IPCC reports:

The official storyline, derived from the bogus statistical technique illustrated in the above IPCC graph, is that the rate of global warming is itself accelerating, and that we are to blame. The Swiss Bureau de l’Escroquerie is investigating this and, no doubt, many other outright frauds in IPCC documents.

However, note how rapidly the measurement uncertainty, here defined as the difference between the least (yellow) and greatest (pink) reported centennial-equivalent temperature trend in Table 1, widens even as the start-date of the period under consideration comes closer to the present, when by rights it should narrow. Another killer question for the believers to answer, therefore:

If one excludes the data after October 2015, which are temporarily influenced by the current el Niño spike in global temperatures, the warming rate since 1950 is lower now than at any previous date since that year.

This widening of the divergence between the terrestrial and satellite datasets is clear evidence that the effect of the tampering with all three terrestrial datasets in the two years preceding the Paris climate summit has been what one would, alas, expect of the tamperers: artificially to increase the apparent warming rate ever more rapidly as the present approaches.

A legitimate inference from this observation is that the tampering, however superficially plausible the numerous excuses for it, was in truth intended and calculated to overwhelm and extinguish the Pause that all the datasets had previously shown, precisely so that those driving and profiting from the climate scam could declare, as they have throughout the Marxstream news media, that there was never any Pause in the first place.

Let us hope that Professor Terence Kealy, former Vice Chancellor of Buckingham University, takes a very close look at this posting as he conducts his own review of the tamperings with the various terrestrial datasets.

The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is now beginning to reflect its magnitude. If past events of this kind are a guide, there will be several months’ further warming before the downturn in the spike begins.

However, if there is a following la Niña, as there often is, the Pause may return at some time from the end of this year onward. Perhaps Bob could address the likelihood of a la Niña in the next of his series of posts on the ENSO phenomenon.

The hiatus period of 18 years 8 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate. And yes, the start-date for the Pause has been inching forward, though just a little more slowly than the end-date, which is why the Pause has continued on average to lengthen.

The warming rate taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets since they began in 1979 is equivalent to 1.2 degrees/century:

However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a 35% greater warming rate, equivalent to 1.6 degrees/century:

Bearing in mind that one-third of the 2.4 W m–2 radiative forcing from all manmade sources since 1750 has occurred during the period of the Pause, a warming rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century is not cause for concern.

As always, a note of caution. Merely because there has been little or no warming in recent decades, one may not draw the conclusion that warming has ended forever. Trend lines measure what has occurred: they do not predict what will occur.

The Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCC’s predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century. In a rational scientific discourse, those who had advocated extreme measures to prevent global warming would now be withdrawing and calmly rethinking their hypotheses. However, this is not a rational scientific discourse.

These facts should be shown to anyone who persists in believing that, in the words of Mr Obama’s Twitteratus, “global warming is real, manmade and dangerous”.

Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 224 months from June 1997 to December 2015 – more than half the 445-month satellite record.

Ø There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since 1997.

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 HadCRUT4 global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.77 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

Ø The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

Ø Compare the warming on the Central England temperature dataset in the 40 years 1694-1733, well before the Industrial Revolution, equivalent to 4.33 C°/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 warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to little more than 1 Cº per century. The IPCC had predicted close to thrice as much.

Ø To meet the IPCC’s original central prediction of 1 C° warming from 1990-2025, in the next decade a warming of 0.75 C°, equivalent to 7.5 C°/century, would have to occur.

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 15 years that has been measured since 1950.

Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is 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 buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 Cº per decade, equivalent to 0.23 Cº per century, or 1 C° in 430 years.

Ø Recent extreme-weather events 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 fact of a long Pause is an indication of the widening discrepancy between prediction and reality in the temperature record.

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

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 as 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 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, since summer temperatures in one hemisphere are compensated by winter in the other. Therefore, an AR(n) model would generate results little different from a least-squares trend.

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:

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 almost entirely 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. The headline graph in these monthly reports begins in 1997 because that is as far back as one can go in the data and still obtain a zero trend.

Fig. T1a. Graphs for RSS and GISS temperatures starting both in 1997 and in 2001. For each dataset the trend-lines are near-identical, showing conclusively that the argument that the Pause was caused by the 1998 el Nino is false (Werner Brozek and Professor Brown worked out this neat demonstration).

Curiously, Dr Mears prefers the terrestrial datasets to the satellite datasets. The UK Met Office, however, uses the satellite data to calibrate its own terrestrial record.

The length of the Pause, 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.

Sources of the IPCC predictions

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 [compared with pre-industrial temperatures]. 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 medium-term Scenario-A estimate of near-term warming, i.e. 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K (compared with 1990) by 2025.

The IPCC’s predicted global warming over the 25 years from 1990 to the present differs little from a straight line (Fig. T2).

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.

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).

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. Here, too, all of the predictions were extravagantly baseless.

The overall picture is clear. Scenario A is the emissions scenario from 1990 that is closest to the observed CO2 emissions outturn.

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 0.28 Cº, equivalent to little more than 1 Cº/century. The IPCC’s central estimate of 0.71 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, that was predicted for Scenario A in IPCC (1990) with “substantial confidence” was approaching three times too big. In fact, 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 even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

In 1995 the IPCC offered a prediction of the warming rates to be expected in response to various rates of increase in CO2 concentration:

Figure T4a. IPCC (1995) predicted various warming rates. The prediction based on the actual rate of change in CO2 concentration since 1995 is highlighted.

The actual increase in CO2 concentration in the two decades since 1995 has been 0.5% per year. So IPCC’s effective central prediction in 1995 was that there should have been 0.36 C° warming since then, equivalent to 1.8o C°/century.

In the 2001 Third Assessment Report, IPCC, at page 8 of the Summary for Policymakers, says: “For the periods 1990-2025 and 1990 to 2050, the projected increases are 0.4-1.1 C° and 0.8-2.6 C° respectively.”

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 takes just three measurements a month in 200,000 cubic kilometres of ocean – roughly 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.

Unfortunately ARGO seems not to have updated the ocean dataset since December 2014. However, what we have 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, equivalent to 0.2 Cº century–1.

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” of which the climate-extremist websites speak are a barely discernible pinprick. The ocean and its heat capacity are a lot bigger than some may realize.

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 Kelvin that were originally measured. NOAA’s conversion of the minuscule warming 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 relevant to land-based life on Earth.

Figure T7. Near-global ocean temperatures by stratum, 0-1900 m, providing a visual reality check to show just how little the upper strata are affected by minor changes in global air surface temperature. Source: ARGO marine atlas.

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 Pause were correct (and it is merely one among dozens that have been offered), 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.

In early October 2015 Steven Goddard added some very interesting graphs to his website. The graphs show the extent to which sea levels have been tampered with to make it look as though there has been sea-level rise when it is arguable that in fact there has been little or none.

Why were the models’ predictions exaggerated?

In 1990 the IPCC predicted – on its business-as-usual Scenario A – that from the Industrial Revolution till the present there would have been 4 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing caused by Man (Fig. T8):

However, from 1995 onward the IPCC decided to assume, on rather slender evidence, that anthropogenic particulate aerosols – mostly soot from combustion – were shading the Earth from the Sun to a large enough extent to cause a strong negative forcing. It has also now belatedly realized that its projected increases in methane concentration were wild exaggerations. As a result of these and other changes, it now estimates that the net anthropogenic forcing of the industrial era is just 2.3 Watts per square meter, or little more than half its prediction in 1990 (Fig. T9):

Figure T9: Net anthropogenic forcings, 1750 to 1950, 1980 and 2012 (IPCC, 2013).

Even this, however, may be a considerable exaggeration. For the best estimate of the actual current top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (total natural and anthropo-genic net forcing) is only 0.6 Watts per square meter (Fig. T10):

Figure T10. Energy budget diagram for the Earth from Stephens et al. (2012)

In short, most of the forcing predicted by the IPCC is either an exaggeration or has already resulted in whatever temperature change it was going to cause. There is little global warming in the pipeline as a result of our past and present sins of emission.

It is also possible that the IPCC and the models have relentlessly exaggerated climate sensitivity. One recent paper on this question is Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015), which found climate sensitivity to be in the region of 1 Cº per CO2 doubling (go to scibull.com and click “Most Read Articles”). The paper identified errors in the models’ treatment of temperature feedbacks and their amplification, which account for two-thirds of the equilibrium warming predicted by the IPCC.

Professor Ray Bates gave a paper in Moscow in summer 2015 in which he concluded, based on the analysis by Lindzen & Choi (2009, 2011) (Fig. T10), that temperature feedbacks are net-negative. Accordingly, he supports the conclusion both by Lindzen & Choi (1990) (Fig. T11) and by Spencer & Braswell (2010, 2011) that climate sensitivity is below – and perhaps considerably below – 1 Cº per CO2 doubling.

Figure T11. Reality (center) vs. 11 models. From Lindzen & Choi (2009).

A growing body of reviewed papers find climate sensitivity considerably below the 3 [1.5, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling that was first put forward in the Charney Report of 1979 for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and is still the IPCC’s best estimate today.

On the evidence to date, therefore, there is no scientific basis for taking any action at all to mitigate CO2 emissions.

Finally, how long will it be before the Freedom Clock (Fig. T12) reaches 20 years without any global warming? If it does, the climate scare will become unsustainable.

Figure T12. The Freedom Clock approaches 20 years without global warming

## 557 thoughts on “The Pause hangs on by its fingernails”

1. From Fig T10, only one third of the energy absorbed at the surface comes form the sun. Where does the other two thirds magically come from? Thin air by the look of it!

• “Thin air”
Nope, the hot air generated by all supercomputers ‘modelling’ global temperature, thus currently we have the ‘warmest year since yesterday’

• I’ve never really understood how the TOA imbalance really is supposed to work. Is there a different picture/equation for day and night? I’ve never really measured but I’m pretty sure the metal of my car is air temperature in the morning but substantially greater than air temperature in the afternoon. Apparently I missing some effect; or maybe the model is too simplistic?

• No idea, in my primitive view global temperature is a nonsense, regardless how and where it is measured.

• Mike says:

taz1999: “I’m pretty sure the metal of my car is air temperature in the morning ”
No, dark metal exposed to the 3K background of the sky will radiate all it can during the night. I have a solar water heater that, even with its double glazed window acts as a radiator at night and ends up several degrees cooler than ambient air by the morning, after a clear night.

• Menicholas says:

Maybe his car is white?

• Harry Twinotter says:

vukcevic.
“No idea, in my primitive view global temperature is a nonsense, regardless how and where it is measured.”
So you are saying all the charts in this article are wrong? That is quite a claim.

• Dave N says:

““No idea, in my primitive view global temperature is a nonsense, regardless how and where it is measured.”
So you are saying all the charts in this article are wrong? That is quite a claim.”
I expect he means that the concept of global temperature is nonsense; that has zero to do with whether or not the graphs accurately reflect what they intend to calculate.

• Peterg says:

Long wave radiation from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

• I didn’t know greenhouse gases were an energy source. Is some kind of nuclear reaction going on there to produce the energy?

• Mike,
Thanks for reminding; Now I remember Willis’ discussion of the water heater/hill equilibrium.
And I think I will take the thermometer out and do a measurement.
So the question still is that 345 W/m2 is down-welling at night but my car is exceeding it radiating out? Or is the TOA diagram day only? What happens the other half of the day when it’s night?
Funny after 20 plus years of study, there’s still no general agreement on the mechanisms.

• Leonard Weinstein says:

Consider two equal temperature surfaces facing each other. Both radiate energy, and both absorb, yet the temperature does not increase for both. Why? The answer is that how much you radiate or absorb by itself is not the issue, only the net energy transfer, which is called the heat transfer. For that case there is no heat transfer. The air-surface exchange of energy is similar. There is no net heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface (on average), but there is a net heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere. In fact, the atmospheric radiation absorption and radiation emission acts like a radiation insulation to the surface, and the net radiation up is less than if there were no absorbing atmosphere. This requires that buoyancy and evaporation actually carry some of the net absorbed solar energy to the atmosphere. This radiation blockage is why more energy is absorbed at the surface, and through a complex process including the lapse rate, it results in a hotter surface. The increase in temperature results in the surface also radiating more than the absorbed solar energy due to being at a higher temperature than otherwise. While this process is not exactly the same as why a blanket makes you warmer, it is basically the same concept-insulation of any type changes the temperature of a surface fed a constant power.

2. “Sins of emission” Great phrase. Good update generally.

• li d says:

Oh you seem to know
whats going on.
Theres a thick blue line going sideways
on that first chart. Whats that mean?
It seems to be at a certain height.
Whats that mean?

• li d says:

if that line was beside that
zero instead of where it is?
If its at zero does that mean
its getting colder?
What if it was below zero?

3. All this excitement about a brief spike in global temperatures which will probably be swiftly followed by a La Nina to bring them back down again. The fact remains, there has been no significant warming since about 1998 when a very powerful El Nino bumped up global temps by around 0.2C – and they have plateaued at that level ever since. We won’t know if the current El Nino is going to do the same until after La Nina happens (if it does). ENSO variability contributes to short term global warming and to pauses in the rise in global temperature: this much we know. What we don’t know for sure is how other internal variability cycles might fit into the patterns of warming and cooling and how non-CO2 external forcings (solar/volcanic) might be expressed via these natural cycles. AMO is due to go negative, solar activity is declining considerably and AMOC has slowed considerably since 2004 (though has stabilised in the last 18 months). All of these things may affect whether we see a continuation of rapid warming in the coming decade, another pause at a new higher (or lower) level or indeed cooling. Finally, I think I’m still correct in saying that, although the Central Pacific was warmer than in 1997/98, temperatures in the Eastern Pacific in 2015 failed to match those seen in 1997/98, so this may affect the magnitude and/or duration of the spike which we see in 2016.

4. RH says:

How long will the pause of The Pause last? By the end of 2017 The Pause will likely resume and be 20 years old. By 2020 the pause will be the decline. Probably.

• Rainer Bensch says:

No, if the temperatue falls the horizontal line will descend until it reaches the temperature anomaly at the start of the satellite record.

• bit chilly says:

yes,it will get colder. i would prefer we do not return to the winter weather of the 70’s,though i would not mind the summers.

5. Robert O says:

An interesting set of data and a lot to contemplate. In science I would have thought that a lack of correlation between levels of CO2 and global temperature would suffice to invalidate the AGW hypothesis, but it continues unabated in politics.
I am not too sure about the closing of CSIRO’s climate group, but seems to be the beginning of the end.

• Politics, in general, is a lagging indicator. Politicians love to “solve” problems that have already worked themselves out, because then they can take credit. See: the US gun homicide rate from the early 1990’s to today.

6. ” The official theory is that CO2 warms the atmosphere and the atmosphere warms the surface.”
No, or only partly. The official theory is that the Earth’s surface is warmed by GHG radiative forcing. The main reason is that with more CO2 in the air, the downwelling LWIR at surface comes from lower, warmer levels. Warmer because of lapse rate.
As to the ocean warming from below, the ocean is warmed by th sun, as it always has been. Heat from the sun penetrates to several metres depth, and almost all must then exit through the surface, creating a temperature gradient as it goes. But at the surface, the net upward flux, part IR meets a substantial DWLWIR, increased by AGW. So the surface temperature must increase to allow the solar influx to exit. The gradient carrying the heat flux to the surface must be maintained, so the deeper water is warmed.
AS to the discrepancy between models and observations, of course one possible explanation is that the models run too warm. But time will tell. GCM’s follow many possible ways that weather could evolve under the climate conditions imposed by forcing. They reproduce ENSO cycles etc, but they are not synchronised to Earth. In model world there are warm and cool spells, but not in phase even to other models. If the Earth has a cool spell, they will not predict that. They predict climate changes in response to forcing.
As to the red question
“Why is the rate of global warming falling even as CO2 concentration rises”
I see that it is immediately followed by the caveat
“If one excludes the data after October 2015, which are temporarily influenced by the current el Niño spike in global temperatures,”
And that is the clue. As with the previous question, it focuses on a shorter than climatic time scale. There is that natural variation that folks here are fond of. It causes warming to fluctuate too. But natural variation has always been with us, and goes both ways. The AGW component is upward.

• Richard M says:

The only good data we have on whether we are seeing increased IR energy from the atmosphere comes from Gero/Turner 2011.
“The most distinct result from these plots is that clearsky scenes are getting colder (i.e., less downwelling radiance) for all seasons and spectral regions (Fig. 7)”
This is occurring even though the same equipment has measured and increases in IR from increases in CO2 (Feldman 2015).
Yes, this is only one location but the evidence is indicating that feedback is strongly negative.

• “This is occurring even though the same equipment has measured”
You left out his explanation:
“The most distinct result from these plots is that clearsky scenes are getting colder (i.e., less downwelling radiance) for all seasons and spectral regions (Fig. 7). Since the downwelling infrared radiance is very sensitive to changes in precipitable water vapor (PWV) (Turner et al. 2004), this almost certainly indicates a decrease in PWV at this site over this period. While the reason for this drying of the atmosphere cannot be determined from AERI data alone, it may be due to a decrease in the evapotranspiration and drying of soils in the past decade (Jung et al. 2010).”

• Mike says:

Reduced absolute humidity runs totally counter to the ASSUMPTION of constant relative humidity which is the basis of the ASSUMED positive water vapour feedback which lies at the heart of all the alarmist claims.
The calculable CO2 forcing is not going to cause a problematic amount of warming with it’s being doubled by an ASSUMED w.v feedback.
Thanks for pointing out in more detail how this observational data disproves that alarmist position.

• “Reduced absolute humidity runs totally counter to the ASSUMPTION of constant relative humidity”
That’s not assumed. But in any case, this observation is in no way global. The author says:
“this almost certainly indicates a decrease in PWV at this site over this period.”
Some places get drier over periods, some wetter.

• Richard M says:

Nick … The reference to Jung is quite interesting as that paper found the drop of humidity ended in 1998. The data collected by Gero/Turner went from 1997-2011. Essentially, there is almost zero overlap. You would have know that had you read the paper. So, it appears your only reason for repeating that nonsense was to obfuscate. Not something a person should be proud of.

• “So, it appears your only reason for repeating that nonsense was to obfuscate.”
You introduced the quote, to try to make your case. He’s your authority, not mine. The “nonsense” was my adding in the parts that you omitted.
In fact, you have Jung et al’s finding backward. They say:
“Our results suggest that global annual evapotranspiration increased on average by 7.16+-1.0 millimetres per year per decade from 1982 to 1997. After that,coincident with the last major El Nino event in 1998, the global evapotranspiration increase seems to have ceased until 2008”
But I think they were referring to the regional maps, which seem to show drying at their site in the decade to 2008.

• Tom in Florida says:

Thanks Nick, that was very well explained. Now my question is, why wouldn’t everyone want a warmer planet. I am sitting here in Florida on a 59F, cold, damp day eating hot bowl of chili dressed in long sleeves, long pants and socks. The cat doesn’t even want to go out today. I know, probably a rather normal day for you folks across the pond, but I didn’t volunteer for this. Gimme that good old hot and steamy weather any day.

• “probably a rather normal day for you folks across the pond”
I’m actually across a different pond. Longer flight, but when people hear about it, we’ll probably be seeing snowbirds from Florida. 32°C yesterday, 29 forecast today.
Scientists can tell you what CO2 will do to climate. But there’s no accounting for tastes.

• Please tell all our Canadian buddies that Floridians are getting tired of trying to warm up your air. Please keep it where it belongs; north of the border. btw FL/GA border is perfectly acceptable.

• FTOP_T says:

I’m in the Tampa area, and it is definitely a “hot soup” day. The wet cold is biting today.

• FTOP_T says:

The impact on ocean temperature from CO2 is not measurable and thus essentially zero. All efforts to erase the pause have now devolved to fiddling with ocean temperatures. Because physics shows CO2 cannot effect ocean temperature, this last ditch effort is the same as blaming a lack of unicorns for global warming.
As the analysis below shows, CO2 forcing is less than the uncertainty measurement for evaporation. Thus, the GHG theory can be removed by a puff of wind.
From, http://www.venturaphotonics.com/GlobalWarming.html
“The Air-Ocean Interface
Water is almost transparent to visible radiation and sunlight can penetrate down through
clear ocean waters to depths of ~100 meters [Hale & Querry, 1973]. The light is absorbed
mainly by the rather weak overtones of the water infrared vibrations and converted into heat.
The oceans cool through a combination of evaporation and long wave infrared (LWIR)
emission from the surface [Yu et al, 2008]. The First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation
Any flux difference is converted into a change in ocean temperature. Over most of the LWIR spectral region, the ocean surface exchanges radiation with the atmosphere. On average, there is a slight exchange heating of the atmosphere by the ocean. This net heat transfer depends on the thermal gradient or air -ocean temperature difference as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. LWIR emissive cooling occurs within a relatively small spectral emission window in the 8 to 12 micron region (~1200 to 800 wavenumbers). The penetration depth of LWIR radiation into the ocean is less than 100 micron, about the width of a human hair.
Small increases in LWIR emission from the atmosphere are converted into increases in
ocean surface evaporation that are too small to detect in the wind driven fluctuations
observed in surface evaporation. Between 1977 and 2003, average ocean evaporation
increased by 11 cm per year from 103 to 114 cm per year. This was caused by an increase in average wind speed of 0.1 meters per second [Yu, 2007]. The uncertainty in the estimate was 2.7 cm per year which is larger than the upper ‘clear sky’ limit to the evaporation produced by a 100 ppm increase in CO2 concentration over 200 years. It is simply impossible for a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to have any effect on ocean temperatures. Figure 4 illustrates the basic energy transfer processes at the air-ocean interface. Figure 5 shows the spectral properties of water in the visible and the IR. Figure 6 shows ocean evaporation and the effect of changes in wind speed. An increase of 1.7 Watts per square meter in downward LWIR ‘clear sky’ radiation translates into an upper limit increase in evaporation rate of 2.4 cm per year. “

• Nick Stokes says, February 6, 2016 at 9:49 am:
“But at the surface, the net upward flux, part IR meets a substantial DWLWIR, increased by AGW. So the surface temperature must increase to allow the solar influx to exit.”
Yes, that’s the *theory*. The problem is, the DWLWIR isn’t increasing:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/ceres-dwlwir.png

• macha says:

Yep. Nick is blind to all but his own paradigm.

• Bartemis says:

“But at the surface, the net upward flux, part IR meets a substantial DWLWIR, increased by AGW. So the surface temperature must increase to allow the solar influx to exit.”
Increased by GHG, the most substantial component of which is from water vapor. And, relative humidity has not been playing ball with the climate models.
“But natural variation has always been with us, and goes both ways. The AGW component is upward.”
What has been proposed is that CO2 warming is dominant. If it is not dominant, then how can anyone tell if the observations are indicative of CO2 induced warming or not?
It is based on faith. Faith in a known effect that should produce warming all things being equal. But, all things are not equal, and feedbacks can significantly attenuate the effect, and even completely negate it. So, assuming that observed long term warming is from CO2 is begging the question. It has not been established with any reasonable level of confidence.

• provoter says:

“The AGW component is upward.”
Sure, but the eternal question is “by how much is it going upward”? If the underlying implication is that it’s going up by enough that a public sufficiently enlightened would reasonably be freaked out over it, you are assuming that which is to be argued. None of us are immune from an occasional begging of the question, but it’s pretty weak stuff at this site just to float out there, ‘AGW component is upward,’ as if that by itself should rightly mean anything to the initiated. If you are not implying that AGW’s upward component is of a degree anyone should worry about, you’re no longer begging the question, but then, what the heck would your point be?
“Scientists can tell you what CO2 will do to climate.”
You sure about that? Is it because their track record is so excellent?
I don’t mean to sound like a tool, and apologies if I do. But you generally speak with a lot of confidence, and I just don’t see the rigor of your arguments justifying it. If my points are off, I’m happy to have them corrected.

• ” … The official theory is that the Earth’s surface is warmed by GHG radiative forcing. The main reason is that with more CO2 in the air, the downwelling LWIR at surface comes from lower, warmer levels. Warmer because of lapse rate. …”
Theory? More like a fairy tale. So “Green House Gas radiative forcing” warms the planet? I want my teachers all rounded up and punished for telling me it is the big ball of fire in the sky that warms the planet. (if they still live after all these decades)
Truly, I am surprised that you would write that swill.

• Brett Keane says:

Ah, yes, and science deni*rs like Nick use the downwards lapse rate for for one purpose. While pretending that the upwards lapse rate at the tropopause does an opposite job. Physics does not work like that, Nicholas, except in warmist dreamworlds. Quite literally over their heads, of course.

• Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy says:

Irrespective of what is argued pro or against, the fact is that “the data from 1979 show a Sine Curve pattern with zero “trend” in both the surface data and satellite data. As the data sets for truncated part of the cyclic pattern, they both show an increasing trend [lower peak to upper peak in a sine curve], though it is zero trend for the complete cycle.” If the data follows a cyclic pattern, linear fitting always give erroneous results. In meteorological data unlike random number, we must look at fitting the data for all types to achieve better results.
Let me give an example,when we are trying to caculate probabilities, first we test for, whether data follows normal distribution or not? If the data follows normal distribution, we simple estimatethe probabilities from mean and standard deviation. If the data is postively or negatively skewed we correct them to normal through fitting incomplete gamma or exponential function or exponential function. Oterwise simply caculating probabilities with the assumption of normal distribution by plotin lowest to the highest. They give biassed estimates.
Same is the case in the studies of weather vs crop production [biomass or grain yield] or energy or moisture deficit or inputs, etc. In nature they don’t follow a linear pattern.
Even in the case of greenhouse effect, they anthropogenic component vary with the energy reaching theEarth’s surface or Ocean’s surface. They vary with season to season, year to year, place to place, Climate system and general circulation — advection, etc.
With all these, my suggestion is try to fit the data in question and see the pattern and then we can discuss whether the pause exists or not.
Dr.S. Jeevananda Reddy

• commieBob says:

The gradient carrying the heat flux to the surface must be maintained, so the deeper water is warmed.

The gradient is described as a set of temperatures that change spatially or temporally. You can draw a graph.
If all the ocean’s heat came from above (ie. the sun), you would expect heat to be added in the tropics and lost in the polar regions. Because of convection the water at the bottom is cold and the water at the top is warmer.
If some heat is coming from below, the gradient will be different. The water at the bottom will be warmer than otherwise expected.

What of ocean warming? The ARGO bathythermographs show little warming at the surface from 2004 until the current el Niño began. What is more, ARGO stratigraphy shows that the warming is generally greater with depth. The warming of the ocean, then, appears to be coming not from above, is it would if CO2 were the driver, but from below.

The gradient is not some kind of inviolable constant. It changes with time and space.

• David A says:

Nick Stokes says,
====================================================
“No, or only partly. The official theory is that the Earth’s surface is warmed by GHG radiative forcing. The main reason is that with more CO2 in the air, the downwelling LWIR at surface comes from lower, warmer levels”
===================================================
So the DWLWIR “at the surface” comes from “lower, warmer levels” meaning what Nick, below the surface?
Are you denying that per CAGW theory the troposphere is suppose to warm considerably faster then the surface?
Nick says…
==========================================================================
“But time will tell. GCM’s follow many possible ways that weather could evolve under the climate conditions imposed by forcing. They reproduce ENSO cycles etc, but they are not synchronised to Earth…
=========================================================================
Are you changing the length of time needed according to IPCC scientists? The current satellite trend includes certain observable natural influences over their 35 plus years. Those are two major volcanic cooling events at the beginning of the trend, with two large ENSO warming events in the latest 40 percent of the satellite record. It appears that after the current very large El Nino, we will need two major volcanic events in conjunction with an La Nina to begin to balance the natural factors. Do you have graphic showing all IPCC natural forcing’s and their influence on climate sans CO2 since 1979? If not, why has this not been done? Is it possible that the natural influences since 1979 have been predominantly from cooling in the beginning, to warmer since?
============================================================
“Heat from the sun penetrates to several metres depth, and almost all must then exit through the surface, creating a temperature gradient as it goes. But at the surface, the net upward flux, part IR meets a substantial DWLWIR, increased by AGW. So the surface temperature must increase to allow the solar influx to exit. The gradient carrying the heat flux to the surface must be maintained, so the deeper water is warmed”
==========================================================================
Nick, first, since the gradient change starts at the surface, it must progress downward to depth according to you hypothesis. This means the surface must first warm, and then the water below it, so no Nick, you hypothesis does not explain the minimal bottom up warming seen in the adjusted Argo data. Also Nick, certainly some of the small CO3 caused increase in DWLWIR must be used up in accelerating evaporation and increasing convection and upward movement of heat, NOT in increasing surface T. Please quantify this by an engineering analysis of how much of this increased DWLWIR goes to increasing surface T, and how much is used up in additional evaporation and acceleration of the hydrological cycle. And finally Nick, how will this .25 degrees ocean warming at depth over the next century (ignoring the error bars and adjustments) ever warm the atmosphere more then .25 degrees?

7. Great and detailed report. Co2 has no impact whatever on climate, it falls out of climate. I guess most people failed grade 9 science – at least the warmtards who pray to the demon toxin named Co2. I wonder if any of these cult members understand convection, thermodynamics or that .00004 is a rounding error. Temps come and go – thanks to nature. And pollution ie human activity, is not climate.

• Claire says:

Hey, what have you not written this up and submitted it to a peer reviewed science journal? Your understanding of chemistry and thermo should be more than enough.

8. “Let us hope that Professor Terence Kealy, former Vice Chancellor of Buckingham University, takes a very close look at this posting as he conducts his own review of the tamperings with the various terrestrial datasets.”
Well, we can hope. But he has already declared, soon after receiving submissions, that there will be no report. And since then, nearly a year after the announcement, nothing has been come from it.

9. tomwys1 says:

An interesting calculation would be \$Billions spent per degree of observed warming since the first IPCC report. Of course it begs the question of \$Billions NOT spent on things of far greater import.
I won’t insult your intelligence by listing them – they would fill your blog as they approach infinity!!!

10. Jean Meeus says:

Ferdinand, it’s CO2 (one atom of carbon + 2 atms of oxygen), not Co2 (which is

11. Jean Meeus says:

Crrection: Co2 is cobalt!

12. Joe Born says:

“One recent paper on this question is Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015), which found climate sensitivity to be in the region of 1 Cº per CO2 doubling.”

Sigh.
I am once again forced to caution readers against relying on that paper. Critical reading reveals that its exhausting recital of facts and figures has almost nothing to do with that sensitivity value, which, as I have explained elsewhere, wasn’t so much “found” as just pulled out of thin air.
Moreover, relying on that paper puts one in danger of being seen to accept its central equation’s main innovation, which is the preposterous notion that the response of a memory-implementing system (such as any system that includes heat storage) can reliably be computed by treating it as a time-variant system that’s memoryless: their $\Delta T$ is zero whenever their $\Delta F$ is. Applied to that hotel shower whose slow drain caused the water (the depth of which is analogous to Monckton et al.’s $\Delta T$) to rise up over your ankles, for example, Monckton et al.’s equation would tell you that shutting the shower off (analogous to setting their $\Delta F$ to zero) made the water disappear instantly. You know it didn’t, but that’s what Monckton et al.’s equation would have you believe.
Of course, Monckton et al. didn’t apply their equation to hotel showers. Among other things, they instead used it to calculate how systems whose step responses their Fig. 4 depicted would respond to the RCP2.6 forcing sequence. But the results, set forth in the first three rows of their Table 6, are nearly as erroneous: they’re less than a third of such systems’ true responses. How credible will your argument for low sensitivity be if it relies on a paper whose results are demonstrably a factor of three too low?
So desperate is Lord Monckton to avoid dealing with these and other technical errors in his paper that he has repeatedly diverted attention from them by calling me a liar for not averting my eyes from his evasion of my request for more information about his transience-fraction values’ provenance. I have already debunked that charge, but it would be irrelevant even if it were true; their paper would still be a study in error and illogic.
If Lord Monckton remains true to form, he will once again fail to admit the paper’s errors. In the past he has instead accused me of “whining,” which is apparently the term he applies to someone’s pointing out incontrovertible math and physics facts for which he has no intelligible answer. (And “troll” seems to be his term for someone who has the temerity to bring up facts uncongenial to his theories.) But keep your eye on the pea: ask yourself whether he has made any relevant technical defense that you really understand. The answer will be no; he has only blown smoke.
Do yourself—and the skeptic community in general—a favor. Don’t rely on that paper. It’s an embarrassment.

• richardscourtney says:

Joe Born:
You state a falsehood when you claim to have been “forced” to yet again make your untrue and carping attacks on “that paper”. Nobody and nothing forces you to stalk Lord Monckton.
And it is simply true that

“One recent paper on this question is Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015), which found climate sensitivity to be in the region of 1 Cº per CO2 doubling.”

Other papers that find climate sensitivity to be even lower than that include
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Richard

• Joe Born says:

If you think what I said about that equation is untrue, make the technical argument. If you think those table entries are correct, make the technical argument.
Actually, I know you can’t. None of Lord Monckton’s other fanboys could, either.
(For others’ benefit): Do rely on those other papers, just don’t rely on Monckton et al.; it’s nothing but cargo-cult science.

• Bill H says:

Richard, can you you do us a favor and stop referring to any old stuff that people write on blogs as “papers”. It’s highly disingenuous, and I’m sure you know that, in standard parlance, when people talk about scientific “papers” they mean papers in scholarly journals.

• “(For others’ benefit): Do rely on those other papers, just don’t rely on Monckton et al.; it’s nothing but cargo-cult science.”

Pot – kettle.
(For everyone’s benefit): Pay no attention to Born yesterday Joe and his pals.
No science is safe.
Notice all of their ‘alleged’ claims of scientific proof, without ever producing actual ‘proof’ are all doubletalk and bafflegab!

• Joe Born says:

ATheoK:
Not only did I provide proof here and here, I provided it above for anyone who has mastered high-school algebra.
Unless you think that the $\Delta T$ (temperature anomaly) in Monckton et al.’s equation can be non-zero when $\Delta F$ (forcing anomaly) is zero, you have to admit that Monckton et al.’s equation implies that the global average temperature would drop instantaneously, despite the earth’s heat capacity, when forcing did. If you believe that it would, your purchase on reality is tenuous.

• richardscourtney says:

Bill H:
Can you you do us a favor and stop making misleading accusations.

Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

were published in “scholarly journals”.
Also, neither the age nor the place of publication of papers has any relevance to their worth; e.g. the worth of the seminal paper on aeronautics is demonstrated by the existence of the aviation industry and not by it being over a century old or its having been published in a magazine about bee-keeping.
Richard

• richardscourtney says:

Joe Born:
You have posted yet another falsehood.
I am NOT a “fanboy” of Lord Monckton: I am an opponent of internet trolls and stalkers.
Also, your goading will not manage to get me to refute your erroneous sums. This is not only because I see no need to repeat any of the rebuttals of your nonsense that Lord Monckton has already provided. My main reason for refusing to address your erroneous sums is because I refuse to flatter your ego by pretending they have sufficient merit as to be worthy of attention.
Richard

• Bartemis says:

“…which is the preposterous notion that the response of a memory-implementing system (such as any system that includes heat storage) can reliably be computed by treating it as a time-variant system that’s memoryless.”
I would note that the warmist side has been guilty of this sin as well. There was a perfectly awful, yet often cited, paper by Andrew Dessler purporting to show positive water vapor feedback which relied upon the slope drawn through a scatter plot of contemporaneous measurements. Put in a substantial time lag, and the slope would reverse.
Yet, the time lag was observable from the data. I do not recall what I estimated it to be, but it was enough to make the slope reverse.

• Joe Born says:

I would note that the warmist side has been guilty of this sin as well.

I haven’t read Dr. Dressler’s papers. If it’s the kind of thing Roy Spencer has written about, though, I guess what Dr. Dressler did is related in a way, although I hadn’t thought of it that way before. If my understanding is correct, though, what he was studying was the short-term response to rapid volcano-caused forcing changes, whereas Monckton et al. applied their equation to gradual, largely CO2-caused changes.
Reading Dressler and Spencer in parallel is on my to-do list, but I’m not sure I’ll get to it before my time runs out.

• Bartemis says:

Somewhere, on this very blog in the long-long ago, Dessler appeared to defend his work. I asked him why he had assumed an instantaneous response. He said there was no reason not to assume a negligible time delay. I informed him that he did not have to guess, as he could derive the time lag from the data itself. He never responded.

• Bartemis says:

So, no, he was looking at the long term. And, it was very poorly done. One of the reasons now I tend to take any announcement from his gang with a huge grain of salt.

• Joe Born says:

Bartemis:
Thanks. You may very well be correct about Dr. Dressler’s looking at long-term delays; I was just speculating. I’ll try to look for that colloquy. Again, it’s something I’m interested in investigating, although I’m not confident that I’ll get to it.

• Soren F says:

Foremost examples of this would be those flagship papers attempting to compare recent warming with and without CO2, only, without incorporating the solar-climate coupling, and the 2-4 decades of (exactly) ocean-heat lag, seen in paleorecords.

• Joe Born says:

Bartemis and Soren:
You are no doubt correct that warmist papers have the shortcomings you mention. But those cases can be characterized as the authors’ using bad models. Monckton et al.’s problem is different. It’s separate from whether the model is correct.
In their paper the models purportedly used are those whose 4W-step responses are set forth in Monckton et al.’s Fig. 4: models of time-invariant systems that have memory. Even if those models are correct, Monckton et al.’s calculation of the models’ responses is not, because for that purpose Monckton et al. use their Equation 1, which treats the systems as though they are instead memoryless and time-variant.
It’s like knowing that the area of a rectangle equals the product of its length and width but contending that the multiplication can reliably be performed by adding the multiplier to the multiplicand: you’ll rarely get the right answer.

• Warren Latham says:

You started with a sigh.
You have ended up by painting yourself into a corner.

• scienceandpublicpolicy.org says:

Mr Born continues to troll here in that spiteful tone that is all his own. He was so desperate to find fault with Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015) that he wrote several pieces devoted to it, each of which was answered in sufficient detail by me. He made a large number of elementary errors, for he was so anxious to find fault that he did not read the paper he was attempting, futilely and in a hate-filled, poisonous way, to criticize.
He has rightly been picked up and called out time and again here by those who detect malice in the sheer nastiness of his tone. He has, as Richard Courtney has pointed out, had all his points answered and more, and I have not allowed him to occupy too much of my time, because one of the tactics of the higher-paid troll is to try to divert researchers’ attention away from their work.
Mr Born has also, and rightly, been criticized by others here for his having lied to the effect that I had “refused” to supply him with data for which he had in fact sent me no request. The data, had he bothered to read the paper he was criticizing, were in the paper anyway.
Having been knocked flat on this and just about all other points, Mr Born now returns to a favorite theme: our simple model of the climate was too simple for his taste. Well, we made all our methods sufficiently explicit for any intelligent scientist to replicate or amend at will: a model is only a model.
His latest accusation is that we omitted to take explicit account of the vast heat capacity of the oceans. The point we were making in the paper (he should really get around to reading it sometime) was that our model showed the official models to be over-sensitive. Insofar as we did not explicitly account for heat capacity, our own model would also be more than somewhat over-sensitive, making the paper’s original point a fortiori. However, the transience fraction, a very simple concept, allows Mr Born to adopt any value he likes for ocean heat capacity without even amending the equation – though, of course, he is free to amend the equation if he wishes.
What he should not do, for he is winning no friends here, is whine and whine and whine about inconsequentialities. By this I do not mean that ocean heat capacity is unimportant: but I do mean that in a simple model constructed to highlight areas in which the larger models are over-sensitive we were able to demonstrate the larger models’ over-sensitivity without even getting into the question of heat capacity.
If Mr Born wants a perfect model of the climate, with all its properties included in precisely the fashion he wishes, then let him construct his own model and publish it after scientific review. But his campaign of gnashing of dentures about our paper has gone as far beyond science as it has beyond seemliness.

• Anthony Watts says:

Jim, the comment checks out. It is from Monckton. Somehow his affiliation URL has gotten transposed with his name in the comment form and appears to be saved that was as some default.

• Joe Born says:

His latest accusation is that we omitted to take explicit account of the vast heat capacity of the oceans. The point we were making in the paper (he should really get around to reading it sometime) was that our model showed the official models to be over-sensitive.

It is he who should read that paper. It says that the first three rows of its Table 6 set forth the RCP 2.6-forcing-scenario responses that systems whose responses to a 4 W/m^2 forcing are shown in Fig. 4 would exhibit. And, contrary to what he contends, my “latest accusation” is actually that those systems’ real response is three or more times what Table 6 says they are. That’s because his equation erroneously treats systems characterized by Fig. 4 as though they were memoryless.
So, whether I think the Fig. 4 (and Table 2) values should be something else is irrelevant; the point is that, although Monckton et al. claimed to have calculated the behavior that would result if they were right, they got something far different.
If he had any intellectual honesty, he would respond by trying to prove that the Fig. 4 systems would, contrary to what I contend, respond to RCP 2.6 in the way his Table 6 says. But he’s good only at calling names and blowing smoke. He has little enthusiasm for the rough and tumble of a real mathematical demonstration:

I have not allowed him to occupy too much of my time

A sure sign of a lightweight.

• Bartemis says:

Could I request that Mssrs. Born and Monckton resolve their issue amicably? We face a rather more intense foe, and do not need infighting.
Failure to recognize time lags is an egregious sin, and we should be proactive about criticizing it in the warmist literature. That was my point in posting.
However it appears, at least at first glance, that Monckton has made a reasonable defense of his analysis as an heuristic. Can we simply take away that the problem has been addressed here, and we are now alerted to it, and will demand justification any time it appears from any source?

• Joe Born says:

If Lord Monckton had only said it’s his belief that, on the time scales his paper deals with, treating the actual climate system as memoryless is actually reasonable, I would have had no quarrel. Frankly, I don’t know whether that’s right, but it doesn’t sound implausible.
He said much more than that, though. His equation was touted as a way to study the behavior others’ climate models, including those, like the Roe models, that do exhibit long delays. He presented his equation as a way of adequately estimating those responses. When you are off by a factor of three, that’s not adequate.
Moreover, he claimed that what he called the Bode equation was “the wrong equation” for climate work, when it is exactly the right equation for the equilibrium response of any feedback system, climate or not. Many electrical engineers have pointed this out to him, but he continues to brazen it out, tending to bring skeptics into disrepute.
He should be a man and admit his errors.

• Bartemis says:

I do not think statements like “a sure sign of a lightweight” are helpful. This is the kind of statement one makes when one has concluded one’s opponent is irredeemable, and you are best served by notifying everyone, FWIW, of your contempt. It is certainly not going to make him do anything but dig in harder.
It is probably too late to unring the bell here. But, I would rather have you two working together than scorching one another.

• Joe Born says:

Sadly, I do think he’s irredeemable.
Although it was clear to me when I wrote my first post last year that the authors had wandered in woefully over their heads, I tried to say nice things about the paper while pointing out a few problems that should have triggered them to take the initiative to clean the whole paper up on their own without my rubbing their noses in it. Instead of thanking me for throwing them a line, however, Lord Monckton did what has done here and in numerous other places: misrepresented my comments and attacked the misrepresentations.
Over the past year I have explained the problems in numerous ways on many occasions. I can see how someone could nonetheless fail to comprehend one or another of those problems. But to me it is inconceivable that he could honestly miss the error in every single instance and consistently be so evasive by accident. In my view he has conclusively demonstrated his lack of honesty and character.
So I am left with cautioning readers to avoid relying on the paper. Read it if you like; doing so is a good test of critical thinking. Even agree with some of the conclusions; I do. But don’t rely on the paper as support for those conclusions. It is a farrago of bad logic, bad math, and bad physics.

• Bartemis says:

I think you ought maybe to cut the guy a little slack. He is being constantly harangued and slimed by some of the worst characters out there. You should expect that he would generally adopt a defensive posture. If you got your back up, too, you had a positive feedback loop going – only one way that can end.
I’m certainly not saying that you were necessarily wrong or that I personally would have handled it better. The gravity of the situation is sure to have everyone on edge. We’ve got a major science initiative in the hands of people who have no apparent compunction even with altering data blatantly in the full light of day to advance their agenda. These are dark times.

• Joe Born says:

I assure you that I have on numerous occasions “cut the guy a little slack”. Eventually, though, we reach limits.
We all look at things through the prism of our own experience. I don’t know what your experience is, but, if you had my experience–both with Lord Monckton and with science and technology issues in general–your view of the situation might be different. If it wouldn’t, in fact, I’d suspect you of being a slow learner. As it is, I can’t fault you; I just think you’re at the point I was at some time ago. We aren’t born knowing everything.

13. mwhite says:
• mwhite says:

After the El Nino some cooling.

• John Bills says:
• “data which is very different from the data of the supposedly same information which John Christy presented to a US Government Committee earlier this week.”
It wasn’t the same information. This is TLT data. Christy presented TMT data. No one seems interested to notice that. He seems to be giving up on TLT.

• richardscourtney says:

John Bills:
Thankyou for that reference. It says you have provided data from Santer et al. which was published in Nature.
Nothing by Santer can be trusted: not only did he cause ‘the Chapter 8 scandal’, he cherry-picked data to generate a false detection of AGW which he published in Nature. The late John Daly provided a clear and succinct account of that Nature paper and its rapid rebuttal.
So, in answer to your question about Santer’s recent publication (viz. “Do you think this will change?”) I think it will be retracted or quietly forgotten while Christy’s data will continue to be respected.
Richard

• Robert B says:

It wasn’t the same information. This is TLT data. Christy presented TMT data. No one seems interested to notice that. He seems to be giving up on TLT.

Nick Stokes
He discussed why he concentrated on TMT in his testimony.
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf
As Nick Stokes ought to know, calculations of TMT do not have the problems picked on (and corrected long ago) that is in TLT. Since TLT (just the lower troposphere and the surface) can’t show warming from emissions without it showing up in the TM(id)T, and the latter is a more reliable calculation, it is better evidence of how the models have failed.

• richardscourtney says:

John Bills:
You provide a ‘bait and switch’ when you assert

and for the reliability of the satellite record you should look at fig. 14 in this paper:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj/93/1/93_2015-001/_pdf

You asked if the data of Santer et al. would be likely to change: you did NOT ask about the reliability of the satellite data.
The facts are:
1.
Santer has a ‘track record’ of providing false relationships of observations to computer projections of climate that he published in Nature with co-authors.
2.
Previously he did it by selecting a part of a time-series that had been affected by known natural variations which generated the apparent relationship when the total time series exhibited no such relationship.
3.
This time he has done it by altering the data of a time-series to obtain his desired relationship and claiming his alterations ‘correct’ for natural variations.
4.
You presented Santer’s altered data as being informative of an agreement between climate model projections and observations.
5.
If you really do buy Santer’s claim which you presented (see point 4) then I have a bridge you may want to buy, too.
Richard

• Mike says:

Interesting plots. Note that the third panel with volcanoes removed gets too warm after Mt P and runs too cold after 2000 compared to the models.
That seems like a clear indication that he models are too sensitive to volcanic cooling. That is because modellers have abandoned real physical modelling in favour of tweaking model parameters to fit their preconceived ideas.

• Chris Hanley says:

Goodness looking at the lowest graph with volcanic and ENSO effects removed, as Paul Homewood has pointed out, the ‘pause’ goes back to 1993.

• FTOP_T says:

First time I have seen this presented, but the eye test always raised the question, “what if the obvious volcanic cooling was removed?”
Regardless of the smoothing method, the net result is that in the face of a linear increase in CO2, temperature is stubbornly stable.
I really do want my taxes back that have been spent on this charade.

• richardscourtney says:

Mike, Chris Hanley and FTOP_T:
I write to caution against accepting anything from Santer especially when the temptation to accept his stuff is great because it agrees with what one would like to be true.
As you all observe, Santer’s alterations to the observations extend the mis-named Pause back to 1993. But as I relate in an above post in this sub-thread, papers where Santer is lead author should be taken with a sack-load of salt.
Richard

• FTOP_T says:

@Richard
Thanks. My point was not specific to Santer, but more generally as to what the trend would display when Mt. Pinatubo (which is significantly more aberrational than ENSO) cooling is removed.
Seems the pause would potentially reach 25+ years without particulate cooling from the eruption.

• richardscourtney says:

Bartemis:
You say

Am I not getting something here? It seems like John Bills is arguing that there is even more of a pause than Christy, and Richard is attacking him for it. Can someone explain this to me?

Clearly, you are “not getting something”. You think you are watching the ‘pea’ but you are being bamboozled by the ‘moving cup’.
I explain as follows.
The ‘data’ John Bills provided is another attempt by Ben Santer to pretend the climate models are providing correct ‘projections’. Santer has a ‘track record’ of attempting to pretend that by misrepresenting data.
Whether or not Bills knew of Santer’s ‘previous’, Bills chose not to state the source of the data he presented. I recognised it and I asked Bills to state the source which he did.
I stated the issue to Bill Illis here where I wrote

The facts are:
1.
Santer has a ‘track record’ of providing false relationships of observations to computer projections of climate that he published in Nature with co-authors.
2.
Previously he did it by selecting a part of a time-series that had been affected by known natural variations which generated the apparent relationship when the total time series exhibited no such relationship.
3.
This time he has done it by altering the data of a time-series to obtain his desired relationship and claiming his alterations ‘correct’ for natural variations.
4.
You presented Santer’s altered data as being informative of an agreement between climate model projections and observations.
5.
If you really do buy Santer’s claim which you presented (see point 4) then I have a bridge you may want to buy, too.

n.b. Santer’s alteration to the data provides the spurious assertion of agreement of his altered data with the computer ‘projections’.
Santer excuses bhis alterations to the data as being ‘corrections’ for volcanism and ENSO. But many assumptions are needed to make such ‘corrections’ because adequate knowledge to avoid assumptions does not exist. Santer’s ‘corrections’ may be right, but others could use different assumptions and get different results. And Santer’s history demonstrates the degree of his bias.
The ‘Pause’ is only interesting because it demonstrates the inability of the climate models to ‘project’ global temperature changes.
Santer’s alterations to empirical data extend the indicated length of the ‘Pause’ but so what?
Accepting Santer’s alterations means accepting his claim of agreement between climate model projections and observations which means accepting the ‘Pause’ demonstrates nothing.
I hope that is now clear.
Richard

• John Bills says:

Richard,
The Santer paper shows a pause from 1993 on (only look at the observations in fig. 4)
This is not going to change by the latest el Niño; the pause will continue.
That was my point………..

• John Bills says:

fig. c

• richardscourtney says:

John Bills:
You are attempting to pretend there is credibility of Santer’s claim of agreement between ‘global surface temperature’ and climate model projections.
You now claim

The Santer paper shows a pause from 1993 on (only look at the observations in fig. {c})
This is not going to change by the latest el Niño; the pause will continue.
That was my point………..

NO! That was NOT your “point”.
Your first “point” was that the data of the Santer paper was credible.
When your first “point” was discredited, you tried second claims that

If you examine figure c you will see that there hasn’t been any significant warming from 1993 on (taking the Pinatubo into account) and the latest niño will not change that. That’s about the same time TLS stopped cooling.

and that the satellite data is untrustworthy.
You are now pressing the point that “there hasn’t been any significant warming from 1993” because there are people who would want to accept that and if they do then they are accepting Santer’s claim of agreement between ‘global surface temperature’ and climate model projections.
In reality, the indications are provided by Santer’s alterations to the data.
Richard

• John Bills says:

Ricard,
How would you know what my point was/is?
Hasta la vista.

• richardscourtney says:

John Bills:

Ricard,
How would you know what my point was/is?
Hasta la vista.

I accepted that your point was what you presented it to be, and I even queried the source of your data to be certain that you intended your point to be what you presented.
However, you now tell me I was wrong to assume your point was what you presented. I thank you for that and if you make posts in future then I will take your advice and assume you are a liar.
Richard

• Bartemis says:

Am I not getting something here? It seems like John Bills is arguing that there is even more of a pause than Christy, and Richard is attacking him for it. Can someone explain this to me?

• richardscourtney says:

Bartemis:
My reply to you is in the wrong place: it is here.
Richard

14. DWR54 says:

It’s interesting that Lord Monckton insists that we use the complete NOAA data set, back to 1880, when determining the trend in the NOAA data (third figure); yet finds 1998 to be sufficient for determining the trend in the RSS data.

• richardscourtney says:

DWR54:

It’s interesting that Lord Monckton insists that we use the complete NOAA data set, back to 1880, when determining the trend in the NOAA data (third figure); yet finds 1998 to be sufficient for determining the trend in the RSS data.

It would avoid you providing silly posts if you were to read what Lord Monckton reports before commenting on it.
His assessment of the RSS data set is from now back in time to determine the longest period when the linear trend is negative which is the length of the misnamed Pause. He reports

Though January 2016 was the warmest January in the RSS satellite record since 1979, the El Niño spike has not yet lasted long enough to end the Pause. That will happen by next month’s report. The RSS data still show no global warming for 18 years 8 months, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration over the period.

Lord Monckton reports that the misnamed Pause is now 18 years 8 months long according to RSS data.
He corrects an omission from the NOAA graph saying

The not necessarily reliable Tom Karl of NOAA and the relentlessly campaigning Gavin Schmidt of NASA held a joint press conference to celebrate the grants their rent-seeking organizations can milk out of their assertion that 2015 was the warmest year since 1880. But they carefully omitted the trend-line from their graph, so I have added it back. It shows the world warming since 1880 at an unexciting two-thirds of a degree per century:

Karl and Schmidt provided that NOAA graph and Lord Monckton merely copied it and “added back” its trend line.
Your inference that they should be quoted to the same time period is daft:
the graph provided by Karl and Schmidt is for 1880 until now and Karl, and Schmidt would rightly be offended if it were truncated to the period of the misnamed Pause as indicated by the RSS data.
Richard

• Bartemis says:

Thank you for the explanation, Richard. I must admit that I was puzzled in the same way as DWR54.

• DWR54 says:

Richard,
“[Lord Monckton’s] assessment of the RSS data set is from now back in time to determine the longest period when the linear trend is negative which is the length of the misnamed Pause.”
_____________________
I realise that. I just wonder why the same method isn’t applied to the NOAA data. Are we only concerned about a pause if it’s in the satellite data?

• richardscourtney says:

DWR54:
Also, all the ‘global surface data’ is meaningless because it changes at the end of each month and, therefore, it is pointless to use any of it to determine the Pause (or anything else).
Richard

• myNym says:

Mr. Courtney,
Thank you for your tireless efforts to defend the truth.
myNym

15. About the surface warming faster than the lower troposphere: According to Figure 7 in http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade, radiosondes show that globally (as globally as their coverage goes that is) the level of the atmosphere that has warmed the fastest is as low as the relevant curve in that graph goes – looking like within a couple hundred meters of the surface.
I know one likely reason why: Warming reduces snow and ice coverage, causing the surface to absorb more sunlight. I expect this lapse rate increase in the lowest troposphere to be occurring in/near regions and times of year where/when the surface albedo is less than before.

16. n.n says:

Mother Nature’s notorious stubborn character denies human prophecies of her evolution.

17. Chris Hanley says:

“I am not the only one to sense that Dr Mears, the keeper of the RSS satellite dataset … may be about to revise his dataset sharply to ensure that the remarkable absence of predicted warming that it demonstrates is sent down the memory hole …”.
=============================
Surely for even the most credulous politicians commentators etc. that would be recognised as ‘jumping the shark’, a bridge too far, an act that would destroy utterly the integrity of climate change™ monitoring.
Josh says it brilliantly:

18. Crispin in Waterloo says:

So many wonderful points made it is hard to make supplementary comments that add anything valuable. I will suggest however that this point is worth keeping a beady eye on:
“However, from 1995 onward the IPCC decided to assume, on rather slender evidence, that anthropogenic particulate aerosols – mostly soot from combustion – were shading the Earth from the Sun to a large enough extent to cause a strong negative forcing.”
‘Soot’ has an organic carbon (OC) component, a black carbon (BC) component and an ash fraction. The Black Carbon particle dog and pony show is underway. The claim is that BC has massive heating properties in sunlight (true) and is therefore a clear and present danger in an already heating world. There is a two-pronged attack under way: blame BC for warming (the opposite of the claim in the cite above) and claim that it has grievous health consequences, which is quite possible, people are checking now.
If the climate game falters and stops paying the bills, the next stepping stone to prosperity is already emerging from the stream of life. We should all jump to it, apparently. BC is the result of incomplete combustion so it is something we can change. When combustion is improved the BC particle size drops below that which interferes with light (100 nanometres) and it is no longer a forcing agent. Keep your eye on that birdie.
BC will be sold as having a double whammy: heat and disease, and when the combustion is improved so it has no thermal effect, the meme will be repeated on the basis that ‘it used to’. The health aspect is one of the components of the ‘global burden of disease’ (GBD). Because no one has any idea what the impact is of removing completely only one of the GBD components, no one can legitimately claim a quantified reduction in health impact, whether deaths or disability adjusted life years (DALYs).
As always, independent investigation of the truth sets you free. Read, think, debate, conclude.
Thank you lord M, a real keeper.

19. TG says:

Lord Monckton nails down the fact’s as usual, thank God we have such a brilliant man on the side of science and truth.

• Gary Pearse says:

Marcus
February 6, 2016 at 12:26 pm
“Rising CO2 levels causing fish to get drunk ??? ROTFLMAO”
I can see the headline: with global warming drunken fish will be unable to do a beeline for fishing nets. Mitigation of this problem for fisherman will require new technology and training in making rapid random swings in their fishing boats to net these zig zagging fish.

20. “Dr Mears concedes the growing discrepancy between the RSS data and the models…
And Mears goes on to say;
“… 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.”
I think one of the bigger questions is: where did that huge 1997-98 ENSO event go in the surface records? Amongst other things it originates at the surface?

• jorgekafkazar says:

If we were going to cherry pick the start of the Pause, surely we’d have chosen 1998, not 1997. Mears is projecting, attributing his own motives and methods to skeptics.

• Harry Twinotter says:

bobfj.
“I think one of the bigger questions is: where did that huge 1997-98 ENSO event go in the surface records? Amongst other things it originates at the surface?”
That is an easy one. It has not disappeared, it is clearly in the data set. Look at the annual data, not the 5 year filter.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The satellite measurements respond more to El Nino events than do the surface records. It also appears the surface measurements respond more to Arctic warming than the satellite measurements. This explains some of the differences in the estimates.
The current El Nino is as strong as the 1997/98 El Nino (ENSO3.4 is 2.3C). Keep watching the satellite measurements as the year progresses. It will show a large spike as well (it is already higher than the 2010 El Nino); it takes a while for the ocean surface warming to couple with the lower troposphere.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

• Harry,
Yes, sorry, I should not have called you Hairy (despite it being with past affection) because it seems to have distracted you from reading what I had to say.
If you are not prepared to admit that the older records in the discontinued HadCrut3, (one example to 2011 and the other to 2014.33) are very different to the current Gistemp, I’m sure that most readers can. Recent records have greatly diminished the prominence of what was popularly known as the “1998 Super El Nino”.
Perhaps you could stop playing semantics and note what I originally wondered:
“I think one of the bigger questions is: where did that huge 1997-98 ENSO event [these are Mears’ words] go in the surface records? Amongst other things it originates at the surface?
Older surfacerecords do in fact show 1997-8 as a huge event but recent records do not. (Old Gistemp is not immediately available to me but I recall that it too showed a huge 1998 when back then it was eagerly greeted by “the community” before awareness of The Pause later crept in)

• Thanks for that Nick and for correcting my recollection of older Gistemp. Strange how Gistemp is so different to HadCruT and the two satellite time-series.

21. seaice1 says:

“it was important that the Pause should not merely cease, for Nature is, as expected, gradually taking care of that, but vanish altogether.”
Can you explain, given the definition of the pause, why there is any distinction between ceasing and vanishing altogether? It is either there or it is not there. If it is not there, it has vanished and ceased. Or have I got this wrong?

• Marcus says:

Next year it will probably return because of La Nina = ceasing then starting again !

• Steve Fraser says:

My interpretation is that he Lord M left off the indication /sarc there.

• To make it cease would halt it and maybe even reverse it but,
To vanish it would mean it never existed, much like they tried with the MWP.

• Proud Skeptic says:

It ain’t even a “Pause” until it starts to go up again, right? See me in another five or ten years. If the temperature continues to climb, it was a pause. If it stabilizes again then we really still won’t know what it is. If it starts going down, then it was a peak.
Semantics.

22. Proud Skeptic says:

Since 1979?
My 32 month old grandson just experienced the deepest snowfall he had ever seen in his life. Had he been talking well enough the year before that, he could have said the same about the winter of 2014/15…same for the one before that. The winter before that he had not yet been born.

• Bartemis says:

Yes. We are all children in terms of the characteristically long time frames of climate evolution. Which is probably why, every other generation or so, we have a panic about the Earth unnaturally heating/cooling.

• @ bartemis, 1:02 pm feb 6.: To me? It’s called “history repeating itself” Which in my opinion is the saddest mark of humanity. We just do not seem to learn from past mistakes.

23. Any warming since the entering our current interglacial has been nothing but beneficial.
Man is doing terrific these past 100 years.
And even more so these past 1000 years.

• richard verney says:

In fact, ever since the Holocene Optimum.
man has been around, in various guises, for a long time, but substantial and significant advance has taken place only since the Holocene Optimum. The planet has been way too cold before then such that man’s time and energy was devoted simply to survival. It is amazing how these shackles can be lifted when there is some beneficial warming.

24. jsuther2013 says:

Tom in Florida. Interesting Chilli you were eating ‘eating hot bowl of chili dressed in long sleeves, long pants and socks’ And what were you wearing?

• Tom in Florida says:

The beauty of the English language is that many sentences can be interpreted in different ways and why it is confusing to those trying to learn it.

• commieBob says:

My eldest wants to know if Tom in Florida coughed up a hairball.

• Tom in Florida says:

If you are implying that I am as arrogant, indifferent and independent as most cats then I take that as a compliment. 🙂

• commieBob says:

Tom in Florida says:
February 7, 2016 at 7:48 am
LOL

25. Hoplite says:

The RSS anomaly for January ’16 is 0.6628. Using the ’98 el nino it was 0.5498 in Jan98 but went to 0.736 in Feb98 and the pause didn’t disappear until March or April (Posted by me in Monckton’s last month update). It is fairly certain it will disappear though but whether it comes back by early 2018 is anyone’s guess at this point.
http://s19.postimg.org/wxd23ujfn/Pause_length_2016_18_3.jpg

26. Eliza says:

Lord Monckton who has done so much to defend real science should defer in this case to Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard who has archived all the fraud committed by the AGW establishment for years!. This person will be remembered forever as the guy who brought AGW down/Even ted Cruz is using his graphs of fraud in Congressional hearings/Pandering to lukewarming is now very passeee. LOL

27. One year from now I think you will get 19 years+ (Pause) because of the Super el Nino as the start…

28. Another excellent article by Christopher Monckton that helps us keep our eye on the movement of the pea under the Warmista thimbles. The lack of correlation between levels of CO2 and global temperature would normally be sufficient to invalidate the AGW hypothesis, but it continues as CAGW is politics and not science.
Where is the tiny amount variations of heat actually coming from? Is it the Sun? What are the ‘adjustments’ really for? These are questions of science not politics..

29. Janice Moore says:

You go on a hike. Before long, the trail heads up a fairly steep slope through a dense forest of fir trees. After half an hour or so, you think, “Phew! This is steep! I must be heading up a really, really, high mountain. I don’t know if I can make it.” Another half hour goes by, the trees thin until there are none and the trail levels off and there is nothing to see to the horizon but level, flat, sand and rock.
“So!” you exclaim, cheerfully, taking off your back pack to get a drink of water, “it was only a plateau! All this time, I’ve been hiking up the side of a giant plateau.” On you walk. And on. And on. And on. Nothing much to see. Flat as a pancake — for miles. Then, in the far distance, a low, gray, mound appears. Being a highly imaginative person, you think, “Hm. Wonder if an elephant is taking a nap on the path. Wonder how an elephant ended up here?”
Drawing closer, you see that there is an 10-ton elephant-sized pile of topsoil blocking your way (you cannot walk off the path, for there is a quick-sand-filled swamp on either side). As you scramble up over the top of it, you think, “Wow! This is the highest place anyone has ever been! Wait till I — (check altimeter) — tell all the folks back in town!” As you start down the other side of the sandpile, you notice a large helicopter with an empty bucket dangling beneath, rapidly thundering away at 3 o’ clock. Squinting into the sun, you’re pretty sure you can read, “ENSO, INC.” on the side.
“Well, waddaya know. It was just one of ENSO’s excess fill dumps. I wouldn’t exactly count that as a genuine elevation gain. Nope. Won’t tell that to the folks — they’d just laugh.”
**********************************************************************
The STOP in warming IS.
Until La Niña has had her say, we won’t know whether or not we are on a true plateau or on a broad shelf and on the way up a mountain (to a much better place for plants and people and wildlife, by the way, if so). If it is a plateau, we will be heading down, one of these months…
We — just — don’t — know.
That is why,
at this point in time,
there is no “pause” (in warming) — yet.
All we know is: CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
(cue Latitude… 🙂 )

30. Bill H says:

Curious that Lord Monckton is so happy to embrace complex computer models for arriving at determination climate parameters, when he has historically been so dismissive of such models. I refer firstly to the models needed to deduce temperature from the actual measurements made by his favored satellites, which are of atmospheric brightness and NOT of temperature. Secondly, the RSS temperature series relies on a “diurnal correction” determined from, horror of horrors, CMIP5 computer climate models.
A few years ago WUWT was sounding off about the IPCC’s supposedly scandalous use of “gray literature” references. Yet in repeatedly citing “UAH version 6”, the Noble Lord Monckton is demonstrating a very heavy reliance on “gray literature”. UAH vs. 6 has not passed peer review, and Dr Spencer has released only sketchy information on his methods. Furthermore, he has failed to release his code, so maybe Steve McIntyre should be launching a FOI demand to UAH.
Such intellectual contortions do remind me of the lengths people go to in order to defend, say, intelligent design. Indeed I would go so far as to propose that there now exists a “Religion of The Pause”.

• Bartemis says:

“I refer firstly to the models needed to deduce temperature from the actual measurements made by his favored satellites, which are of atmospheric brightness and NOT of temperature.”
This is the dumbest of all the trumped up charges against the satellite data. Thermometers do not measure temperature either. They measure thermal expansion of a thermally sensitive medium, or thermal increase in electrical resistance, or some other well calibrated phenomenon associated with temperature.
“Secondly, the RSS temperature series relies on a “diurnal correction” determined from, horror of horrors, CMIP5 computer climate models.”
Mmmm, no. The diurnal correction is for incredibly well known and well understood drift in the ascending node of the orbit. The correction is on the order of hundredths of degC/decade.
You have been duped by a concerted campaign to discredit the satellite data, the best, most spatially extensive, most uniform, and most objective data that we have at the current time.

• Bill H says:

No. A thermometer doesn’t measure thermal expansion. Think about it. If you had a mercury thermometer how would you be able to work out the thermal expansion of mercury just by looking at the scale on the thermomenter. It USES the very simple relation between thermal expansion and temperature rise. You need no complex computer models to determine temperature, just a simple formula.
As for your comments on the Diurnal correction being “incredibly well known” with, can you provide references? Mears and Wentz of RSS determined it in a 2005 paper in Science, http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_Science_2005_Diurnal.pdf :
“In our work on MSU2, we used a different approach to evaluate the diurnal cycle. We used 5 years of hourly output from a climate model as input to a microwave radiative transfer model to estimate the seasonally varying diurnal cycle in measured temperature for each satellite view angle at each point on the globe (7).”
Rather than calling me “dumb”, Bartemis, can I suggest you find some evidence to support your contentions

• “Bill H February 6, 2016 at 2:46 pm
No. A thermometer doesn’t measure thermal expansion. Think about it. If you had a mercury thermometer how would you be able to work out the thermal expansion of mercury just by looking at the scale on the thermomenter. It USES the very simple relation between thermal expansion and temperature rise. You need no complex computer models to determine temperature, just a simple formula…”

Do you even read what you write?
A thermometer uses the thermal expansion of the contained fluid within a measured narrow space. The marks establishing the column as a thermometer are based on the thermal expansion of the fluid for a given temperature range.
At no point does a thermometer actually measure temperature, the measurement lines are drawn to expected thermal expansion points within a specified range.

“…In our work on MSU2, we used a different approach to evaluate the diurnal cycle. We used 5 years of hourly output from a climate model as input to a microwave radiative transfer model to estimate the seasonally varying diurnal cycle in measured temperature for each satellite view angle at each point on the globe (7).”
Rather than calling me “dumb”, Bartemis, can I suggest you find some evidence to support your contentions…”
Model output is not data!
How long did it take to generate your ‘five years of hourly output’? Ten minutes? Eight minutes? Three minutes on a fast multi CPU system?
All you’ve accomplished using model data is apply your own confirmation bias.
Smart wouldn’t be our first description of that pseudo science.
Let us know when you’ve actually captured, verified and certified every hour of output for the entire time length involved, not generated your own silly set of random numbers.

• Janice Moore says:

Go, Theo! +1!
(and yes, we can see where the blockquote was supposed to end, no problem)

• Bartemis,
“or some other well calibrated phenomenon associated with temperature”
Yes, and microwave emission is one such. But with resistance etc, you know exactly where you are measuring that property. With brightness there is a very difficult inverse to work out where, in an atmosphere with a large temperature gradient, the brightness signal was generated.
“The diurnal correction is for incredibly well known and well understood drift”
For UAH, the correction was introduced this year, with ver 6. Here is what Roy Spencer says about it:
” For example, years ago we could use certain AMSU-carrying satellites which minimized the effect of diurnal drift, which we did not explicitly correct for. That is no longer possible, and an explicit correction for diurnal drift is now necessary. The correction for diurnal drift is difficult to do well, and we have been committed to it being empirically–based, partly to provide an alternative to the RSS satellite dataset which uses a climate model for the diurnal drift adjustment.”

• Sweet Old Bob says:

Nonsense.

• Janice Moore says:

Dear Bill H,
It sounds like some reading might help you. Try using some of the words in your questions and assertions as search terms on Bing or Google and see if you can learn on your own. Also, the WUWT search box (upper right margin) is useful for this.
Here is a bit to get you started in Learning About Satellite Temperature Data:
ShrNfr:
“As a guy who did his PhD thesis on how to tease temperatures out of the brightness temperature to get temperature at the standard levels in the 1970s, it is almost impossible to fudge the data other than by outright fabrication. As the horn rotates around, one of its views is of a calibration load with a known temperature. Altitude will effect the weighting functions a tad, but those are an evolving process over time and the altitude of the satellite is well known and so the weighting function can be evaluated on the basis of the physics of the oxygen molecular spectrum. I suppose it is remotely possible that the observation frequency could change substantially, but I, for one, have never encountered that. Compared to the “adjustments” that are made to the surface temperature network, there is almost zero wiggle room in the microwave sounders. *** ”
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/15/friday-funny-or-not-so-funny-satellite-deniers/#comment-2120541 )
IOW: satellites measure temperature (and you will find this is so throughout the literature about satellite data).
That satellites do not measure temperature directly, I think you were not quarreling with, but, in case you do not understand that point, here are three WUWT commenters to help you:
1) simple tourist:
“Now RSS is non-PC, because it isn’t a direct measure of temp (what? how can you directly measure energy content?), but I remember the time when the alarmists were parroting the big spike pf the year 98, with RSS.
These guys have no face.”
2) Tom T:
“Correct there is no such thing as a direct measure of temperature. Liquid thermometers measure the thermal expansion of a liquid. Prop thermometers measure voltage drop due to resistance (this is how MMTS sensors work).”
3) Steven F:
“There are two electronic devices used to measure temperature. thermistors and thermocouples. Thermistors us a temperature sensitive material, typically a semiconductor, and measure the resistance of it.
Thermocouple have two different metals joined together. When exposed to heat a small voltage is generated by the thermocouple.
As is typically the case you get what you pay for. The most expensive devices are typically very accurate. If you spend even more you get a very accurate sensor that has had a calibration check done.
It is my understanding that the satellites HAH and RSS use have platinum based thermocouples which are some of the most accurate temperature sensors available.”
(All 3 comments nested from simple-touriste’s comment: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/15/the-climateers-new-pause-excuse-born-of-desperation-the-satellites-are-lying/#comment-2120491 )
***********************************************************************************
Re: Your snarl at Bartemis, per ShrNfr, since at least the 1970’s, they have known about diurnal correction. I’d say that makes it, by 2016, “incredibly well known.”
Best wishes in your science learning!
Janice

• Marcus says:

Janice, you never fail to astound me !

• Janice Moore says:

Marcus!! Hi.
Heh. Veeery cleverly worded, Marcus, however, I am going to take “astound” as a compliment, so,
THANK YOU, VEDDY MUCH! 🙂
Hope all is well. You’re being prayed for. Just want to.
Janice

• “Janice Moore February 6, 2016 at 9:06 pm”
Guilty as charged!
One could state that I am HTML closures challenged… No excuses, I am guilty.

31. Janice Moore says:

And, thank you, Christopher Monckton, for all your excellent work on behalf of freedom!
Freedom. That is the bottom line, here.

32. Birdynumnum says:

One word stands out in all this. TAMPERATURE
Spot on. lol

33. Bill H says:

I’ve just noticed a real howler by my Noble Viscount.
He says “Since the satellites of both UAH and RSS show there has been very little global warming”.
Actually UAH and RSS are both analysing data from the same third party satellites to produce their temperature series. They have both published peer-reviewed temperature series which don’t agree very well. However, Spencer of UAH has now, apparently, disowned his earlier peer-reviewed work in favour of some gray literature that he has produced, which lacks any clear explanation of his methods.

• Bartemis says:

They agree quite well.

• Bartemis says:
• Bill H says:

Bartemis, before making such claims you should do some statistical analysis. Over the period of the “pause”, 1996-2015, the data provided by the peer reviewed method of Spencer and Christie (UAH vs 5) shows a warming trend of 0.2 degrees per decade (using data on wood for trees). No pause there.
Indeed if you look WITH CARE at the graph you will notice that over this period the UAH data are consistently lower than the RSS data till about 2008.

• Bill H says:

Apologies for the typo, the trend per decade from UAH vs 5 is 0.12 degrees celsius, not 0.2. However, the conclusion is the same: no pause over this period.

• Robert B says:

Bill H and Nick S, please stop catering for the kiddies and portraying this as people too incompetent to read the thermometer sticking out of Earths Rectum.
For the last 15 years, the trend in RSS is less than 0.03°C/century while its less than 0.1°C/century in the UAHv5. The correction brings it closer to RSS so peer reviewed or not, you would assume that it was a better estimate rather than a worse one.
Both take data of microwave emission of O2 from the whole atmosphere and then need to calculate what just the lower troposphere would give in the absence of the remaining atmosphere, and we are talking about a difference that is equivalent to the temperature change walking up a few flights of stairs.

• Robert B February 6, 2016 at 5:27 pm
For the last 15 years, the trend in RSS is less than 0.03°C/century while its less than 0.1°C/century in the UAHv5. The correction brings it closer to RSS so peer reviewed or not, you would assume that it was a better estimate rather than a worse one.
Both take data of microwave emission of O2 from the whole atmosphere and then need to calculate what just the lower troposphere would give in the absence of the remaining atmosphere, and we are talking about a difference that is equivalent to the temperature change walking up a few flights of stairs.

The ‘correction’ to produce version 6 is in fact a different product which covers a different part of the atmosphere than either RSS TLT or UAH 5.6, it includes a greater contribution from higher in the atmosphere. It’s more similar to TMT, which is perhaps why Christy is now focussing on TMT?

• Richard M says:

So, it appears you believe all the surface data sets are junk because they continue to replace their older data with different data which “doesn’t agree very well”.

• Bill H:
Howl away Billh!
TIROS-N
NOAA-06
NOAA-07
NOAA-08
NOAA-09
NOAA-10
NOAA-11
NOAA-12
NOAA-14
NOAA-15
NOAA-16
NOAA-17
NOAA-18
METOP-A
AQUA
NOAA-19
UAH uses these satellites:
European METOP-A
NOAA polar orbiter, NOAA-19
NOAA and NASA satellites
And it is likely that both RSS and UAH are using or researching using the NOAA Suomi NPP satellite and forthcoming JPSS satellites.
Each site may be concurrently developing global temperature tracking, but each site is building upon their own research and verifying their temperatures against balloon radiosondes.
Now, about those ‘third party’ satellites? Can you identify which ‘third party’ satellites they’re using and valid research identifying specific errors with those satellites?
I’m sure that when you launch your own line of ‘third party’ BillH rent-a-junker satellites, NOAA, UAH and RSS will consider purchasing data feeds from your visual, infrared and microwave sensors; i.e. if your data is trustworthy…

34. Barbara says:

To control people you need either a crisis or a manufactured crisis!

35. jorgekafkazar says:

36. “As Table 1 shows, the discrepancy between the least (yellow background) and the greatest (purple background) reported temperature change over successive periods is growing, not narrowing:”
Table 1 is absurd. It compares quite different things – surface temperature vs troposphere, and then claims the difference between them is an “uncertainty”. Uncertainty of what? In every case the difference shown is actually between a surface measure and a troposphere. No uncertainty, it just means they are different.
It also has at least one error. The first slope for NCEI should be 1, not 1.55. That actually affects the “uncertainty”. But it may be that the NCEI top value should be 0.57, not 0.37.
But even if they really were uncertainties, they would be expected to increase as the period diminishes. The uncertainty of an OLS trend goes up as (from memory) n^-1.5, where n is number of points (durection). So scaling the .51 value accordingly, the expected uncertainties are
.51, .87, 1.19, 1.98
ie increasing more rapidly than Table 1.

• scienceandpublicpolicy.org says:

Mr Stokes, in his increasing desperation, now suggests that my Table 1 compares surface temperature with tropospheric temperature. No: it compares surface temperature ANOMALIES with LOWER troposphere temperature ANOMALIES: and it concerns itself less with the fact that there is a difference between the surface and lower-troposphere anomalies than with the fact that the difference between them is widening when it should be narrowing.
Although variability and hence uncertainty increase as the period under review decreases, this relatively small increase ought to have been more than outweighed by the increasing reliability of measurements, what with all the billions thrown at them. Instead, the satellites, supported by the radiosondes, show little or no warming of either the mid or the lower troposphere, but the surface tamperature datasets – which, like the satellite datasets, showed the Pause until a couple of years ago – managed to airbrush it away.

• “No: it compares surface temperature ANOMALIES with LOWER troposphere temperature ANOMALIES:”
It is introduced saying
“As Table 1 shows, the discrepancy between the least (yellow background) and the greatest (purple background) reported temperature change over successive periods is growing, not narrowing”
In fact, the change in anomalies should be also the change in temperatures. But the fact remains – the emphasised differences are the difference in behaviour between surface and troposphere. They aren’t “uncertainties”.
“the difference between them is widening when it should be narrowing”
Who said it should be narrowing? They aren’t measures of the same thing, separated by measurement error. They are measurement of different places.

37. belousov says:

In the last year I have totally lost interest in any official data on global weather /climate trends. This is because it simply cannot be believed. I began ignoring oceanic data earlier than that, after the entire climate community allowed a single PhD student Josh Willis to change the Argos buoy data from showing cooling to showing warming by simply editing out the cold tail of the data with no justification other than political mandate.
It’s an Alice in Wonderland of surreal adjustments that are increasing exponentially in intensity and now dwarf any remaining original signal. Anthony’s collection here at WUWT of official data is very laudable, and in an earlier generation with even one honest official in ten, it would tell us at least something about the world’s climate. But it no longer does. All the datasets are in the hands of vetted activists and produce only Salvador Dali-esque psycodelic artwork. Not climate data – understanding of what the word “data” even means has been lost, politically crushed.
For real climate information one must read between the lines of sea ice and glaciation reports, weather anomalies, farm animal cold-deaths, fisheries data, unusual wildlife sightings and the like.

• emsnews says:

All we have to do is watch the ice in Hudson Bay. If it melts in summer, we are safe. If it doesn’t, we are doomed by another Ice Age. Right now, it is totally iced every winter by December and doesn’t melt until end of May so I doubt the planet is all that hot.

• richard verney says:

I am glad to see someone else make this point.
If this ‘science’ was properly conducted, a random sample of the ARGO buoys taken from those showing the largest cooling trend, and a random sample of the ARGO buoys taken from those showing the greatest warming trend would have been returned to the laboratory for instrument and calibration testing.
Any genuine ‘scientist’ would have tested to see whether there was or was not some genuine instrument error, before deciding there must be a problem, the problem is the buoys showing cooling, this ‘problem’ can be corrected simply by deleting the ‘offending’ buoys from the data set.
What sort of science is that?
Whenever ARGO comes up for discussion, this initialisation problem/incident should always be mentioned and the data should then be viewed with an appropriate caveat in mind..
As you suggest none of the underlying data or time series extrapolations on temperature/temperature anomaly are fit for purpose. The land based data has been so severely bastardised that it is incapable of genuine scientific study. Pre ARGO (and note the caveat above) there is no reliable data on ocean temperature, and even with ARGO the data series is way too short and there is insufficient sampling/coverage.
It is a joke. Unfortunately, given the wasted billions, just not a funny one.

• FTOP_T says:

First the ARGO data was “corrected” in 2007, but it still showed cooling. So then it was “fixed” in 2011.
Tallbloke has a post on this…
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/argo-the-mystery-of-global-warmings-missing-heat/
I found this comment to the post to be even more relevant. The idea that any atmospheric process could sequester heat in the ocean is laughable. There is nothing man made that can have any impact on ocean temperature.
Considering LWIR is fully absorbed in the first few microns, alarmists need to calculate how warm a thimble of water would need to be to change the temperature of an Olympic size swimming pool. Further, the idea that LWIR somehow slows cooling is equally laughable, since a 2mph wind changes the heat loss from evaporation at a greater rate than the supposed CO2 forcing slows it.
“MostlyHarmless says:
February 27, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Few people appreciate just how small the heat capacity of the atmosphere is, when compared with the oceans below. Several of my first blog posts were on scale in the climate system. Here’s what I said about atmosphere & oceans (if anyone spots an error, let me know; unlike certain climate scientists, I don’t mind my errors being “outed”; I want to be correct in my arguments.):
Normal atmospheric pressure at the Earth’s surface can balance a column of mercury (which is a very dense liquid metal) 760 mm high (just over 3/4 metre); this equates to a column of water 10.33 metres high. Another way to envisage this is to consider that the atmosphere exerts a pressure equal to the weight of the column of air above a given area. The pressure is 1.03325 kilograms per square centimetre; the height of a column of water weighing 1.033 kg, and therefore exerting the same pressure on 1 sq.cm is 1033 cm or 10.33 metres. The mass of the atmosphere is equivalent to a depth of just 10.33 metres of sea water. When the ocean area is taken into account (71% of the earth’s surface), this equates to 14.5 metres depth of ocean.
When heat content or capacity is considered, the disparity is even larger. The specific heat (amount of heat needed to heat one gram of a substance one degree Celsius) of sea water is 3.93, the specific heat of dry air is 1.006.
So what does all this mean? It means that the heat capacity of the atmosphere is equivalent to just 14.5 x 1.006/3.93 or just 3.7 metres of ocean depth. The ocean’s heat capacity is hundreds of times greater than that of the atmosphere.
The idea that the atmosphere “drives” the oceans is risible; the reverse must be the case.”

• scienceandpublicpolicy.org says:

In answer to Belousov, what remains interesting is that, even after the tampering by the believers, the terrestrial datasets are at one with the satellite datasets in not showing anything like the predicted rates of global warming.

• bit chilly says:

well said belousov.

38. flearider says:

all i have to say is tell me again in 5 yrs we are still warming ..then in 10 yrs tell me why we are cooling ..
and if i make it to 85 and see us warm again (35yrs from now) i can say it’s all happened before ..

• Richard G says:

I lived through a 30 year cool cycle and a 20 year warm cycle. Now I have a 30 year cool cycle to look forward to? It appears as if I’ll get the short end of the climate stick. Maybe I should have been a hockey player.

39. Neville says:

The Watts study showed at least 50% more warming of US surface data, because of the UHI effect. If true and if this was a similar result for the rest of the planet, we would have less than 1 C/ century warming since 1979 for the surface data. That’s close to the satellite data since 1979. Also Roy Spencer stated that the Watts study showed about 60% too much warming for the present US surface data.

40. Peterg says:

I would have thought that if the heat was entering the ocean, then the dangerous water vapor positive feedback effect would be short circuited, and all that is left would be the direct radiative effect of the extra co2, which isn’t all that much.

• scienceandpublicpolicy.org says:

PeterG is broadly correct. The ocean acts as an enormous heat sink, and its very large heat capacity is one of the major reasons why the Earth’s surface temperature appears to have varied by little more than 3 K either side of the 800,000-year mean over the past 800,000 years. it is also one of the major reasons why very large and very rapid global warming as a result of our sins of emission is not at all likely.

41. Robert B says:

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

For Australians, Bass Strait is about the area measured by one Argo Buoy but only averages 63m deep. The surface temperature at the moment varies from 19-21°C. Here is a loop for the weeks forecast from BOM
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/forecasts/idyoc15.shtml?region=15&forecast=1#
As you can see, three measurements in the one spot for the month can not get you the monthly SST average to better than ±1°C. Its irrelevant how precise the thermometers are on the buoys and the LLN can’t be applied willy nilly.

• scienceandpublicpolicy.org says:

Robert B provides excellent confirmation of the point that measurements of ocean temperature are prone to very large and, at present, substantially unconstrainable uncertainties. Unfortunately, this allows the usual suspects to make up any old nonsense they like, because no one is in a position to prove them wrong. By the same token, they can’t prove they’re right, of course.

42. commieBob says:

The warming of the ocean, then, appears to be coming not from above, is it would if CO2 were the driver, but from below.
This sounds reasonable. I’m going to attempt a back-of-the-envelope calculation; please help me if I get it wrong.
1 – This link gives heat energy coming from Earth’s interior as 0.03% of Earth’s total energy budget.
2 – Figure T10 (above) gives the TOA heat input as 340 W/m2.
3 – It gives the imbalance as 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m2.
4 – That means the imbalance could be 0.2 W/m2.
5 – That would be 100 x 0.2 / 340 = 0.06%
6 – That means half the TOA imbalance could be accounted for by heat coming from the Earth’s interior.
amiright?
Disclaimer – I’m using numbers from Figure T10 for sake of argument. I refuse to believe they can do the planet’s energy budget as accurately as they say they can.

• Robert B says:

The assumption is that the amount coming from Earth doesn’t vary by 100%. More likely that the variation is large but affecting currents rather than adding to the energy budget.

43. “Where has the surface warming of the past 19 years come from?”

At last! Christopher asks the same question I have been asking repeatedly for the past year or so. The theory says the atmosphere warms the surface. Therefore from basic thermodynamics, the atmosphere must lead the warming. Now either:
The fiddling of the surface data sets produced a spurious warming ahead of the atmospheric (non)warming, in which case there has been no warming and the theory is wrong, or:
The direction of warming contradicts the theory, in which case the theory is wrong.
Either way the theory is now disproved.

44. Joseph Murphy says:

Lord Monckton, if the end of the pause signals the end of your series, I must say I will miss it. Your series has been a very flashy way of drawing in the indictrinated to an alternate viewpoint. Hopefully getting them to want to educate themselves before blindly endorsing a dogma.
Climate science puts me in a strange position. If the warming of the last 100 years continues for the next hundred or two, I would celebrate man’s good fortune. On the otherhand, I pray for a cooling climate to put an end to the nonesense. But, the latter is a greedy a foolish thought. Greedy because it would be better for people to see the nonesense without force but rather by intelect, regardless of a warming climate. And foolish because the Nonesense will not end… man would have to evolve into a new species before that would come to fruition. And what a boring species we would be at that point.

• Interesting… The only way to save science from non-science is to have something bad happen (cooling). If a truly wonderful thing happens (warming) the weakest and poorest will be crushed by policies that make the rich richer and destroy any hope for avoiding a superstitious, dark age.

• Monckton of Brenchley says:

In reply to Mr Murphy, I am hoping to continue the monthly series even if there is no Pause, because – as this column has often said – the growing discrepancy between prediction and reality is the devastating fact that will, in the end, replace hard-Left politics with scientific sanity and reason.

45. Richard M says:

Maybe it is time to start using data corrected for ENSO (and possibly volcanoes) to determine the pause. This would eliminate the coming problem with El Nino temporarily leading to an upward trend. It would also end the propaganda claims of cherry picking that the useful idiots continue to repeat. I’ve seen examples like the one presented above by John Bills. Maybe the good Lord could base his next assessment on a corrected set of data????

• Monckton of Brenchley says:

ENSO-corrected data are what NOAA used in their modeling in 1998, by which they determined that periods of 15 years or more without warming indicated a discrepancy between prediction and observation. What they also said is that after allowing for ENSO the discrepancy between prediction and observation is even larger than without allowing for ENSO.

• “What they also said is that after allowing for ENSO the discrepancy between prediction and observation is even larger than without allowing for ENSO.”
ENSO is an oscillatory effect which variably augments or diminishes the trend. It’s not what they are interested in, so they subtract it. What they said in the report for 2008 was that in the specific period 1999-2008, the ENSO component of the trend was positive. That is not a rule for all periods.

46. Bellman says:

Though January 2016 was the warmest January in the RSS satellite record since 1979, the El Niño spike has not yet lasted long enough to end the Pause. That will happen by next month’s report.

I’m not sure how Christopher Monckton can be so sure the Pause will end next month. By my calculation February could be a record breaking 0.9C and he could still claim a pause starting in December 1997.

• Yes, I think end March is more likely. But 0.9C for Feb is not impossible. That’s a rise of 0.24°C from Jan, very little more than the corresponding rise in 1998.

47. spaatch says:
48. emsnews says:

During the second half of February, we are going to see BELOW ZERO F weather. December, in classic el Nino fashion, was unusually balmy and nice. Then as the el Nino fades, in comes the backlash not next winter, which will be wickedly cold, but NOW.
And this is the entire problem with the global warming thingie: if it is warm briefly some time or other, we are told this is permanent and we will all die but then it departs fairly quickly and we get month after month of brutal cold which we are told is temporary.
I am sick and tired of this stupid whinging.

49. Gary Pearse says:

I guess I’m become a little weary of both Tisdale’s and Monckton’s work in terms of where it is going as long as they feel obliged to use data that his being shaped to fit the shapers’ purposes. Their work, once exciting and interesting is losing its appeal because they work with the evermore fiddled temperatures. Ultimately, the point they are trying to make will disappear. I see some commenters on this thread have picked up on the real meaning of the 10 minute video from the clime syndicate in which Mears has been denigrating the very RSS satellite series he is paid to put together. When this video came out, I recognized a poker player’s ‘tell’ and commented that, following upon the karlelizing of the pause, this is 100% certain to foreshadow an abrupt adjustment to the satellite data on the basis of “drift”, some just discovered heating bias in the guts of the satellite or some such thing to justify a swing upwards. The hatchet job done in the video on Spencer and Christy is the clincher. If the two sets diverge now, then everyone can understand that S and C are DNyers. Also, they have been given encouragement on how easy Karl held his nose and just did it like Nike says and a little time goes by and the pause becomes an egregious trick by UAH guys in Alabama. Oh there will be papers on it and conferences. The news is on board no matter what the destination.
Don’t get me wrong here. Their work has had huge impact. I’d venture to say Monckton’s work, including standing up at the clime chimes in Doha to announce the pause four or five years ago and his constant pushing of the ‘pause’ into their faces has certainly urged them to do something to get rid of this thing that threatens to bring down the CAGW industry. I just hate to see C.M. heading for a silence on this topic as these goons stand by grinning.
Even the 1998 heat was manufactured by chopping the even warmer 1934 temperature down to make it happen by GISS under Hansen. We haven’t really had any warming for 82 years!! Nothing is hanging on by its fingernails.
http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif

• TA says:

Gary Pearse
February 6, 2016 at 7:31 pm wrote: “Even the 1998 heat was manufactured by chopping the even warmer 1934 temperature down to make it happen by GISS under Hansen. We haven’t really had any warming for 82 years!!”
Excellent point, Gary, and one everyone should keep in mind.

50. Lord Monckton:

“Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers…”

While there still are liquid thermometers requiring people to read them, the newer stations use a thermistor or electrical resistance method of measurements.
Some notes from NOAA documents:
“United States Climate Reference Network (USCRN)
Functional Requirements Document”

Air Temperature
Each CRN field site shall provide air temperature measurements. Each air temperature sensor and
its supporting apparatus shall be configured to accurately reflect the ambient air temperature at the
site. Provisions to eliminate exposure to precipitation and minimize measurement biases caused by
Air temperature measurements shall meet the following requirements:
Minimum + 0.30 C over the range -50 to +500 C
Accuracy + 0.60 C over the ranges -50 to -600 and +50 to -600C
Resolution 0.010 C for the raw data
0.10 C for the computed five minute averages
Reported Values
for Each Sensor
– Maximum hourly value (largest 5 minute average)
– Minimum hourly value (lowest 5 minute average)
– Average of each hour=s twelve 5-minute averages
– Average temperature of the hour=s last five minute period”
“US Climate Reference Network (USCRN)
Handbook for Manual Quality Monitoring”
“Ambient Temperature
4.2.1 Primary
Inter-comparison of the 3 temperature sensors: Sensors should be within 0.3° C of one another. An hourly flag message is generated for any departure greater than 0.30° C (i.e., 0.301° C and greater).
4.2.2 Secondary
1. Comparison with the IR temperature sensor. A basic sanity check is for the ambient max temp not to be higher/greater than the IR and the ambient min not to be less than the IR. Note: When the ground is covered by snow, sleet, or hail, the IR temperature will not rise above 0° C even when the ambient temperatures rise to levels above 0° C.
2. Comparison”
“COOPERATIVE STATION INSPECTION”
“2) Max & Min Thermometers (MXMN)
A. Clean dust and dirt from the thermometers.
B. Remove any wasp or other insect nests.
C. Check and remove separations in the minimum thermometer.
D. Verify that maximum and minimum thermometers agree within 1 degree.

E. Clean and lube the Townsend support.
3) Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS)
A. Check all connections. Repair or replace if worn or loose.
B. Compare reading from quality thermometer with displayed temperature. Replace faulty component if not reasonably close to same value.
C. Check all installed lightning protection. Replace any damaged or burned components.
D. Clean the sensor unit. Be certain to remove any wasp or insect nests from inside the sensor.

E. Discuss normal operations and explain the “HI,” “LO,” and “HELP” readings on display. Also review the meaning of “last digit flashing.”
“What’s in that MMTS Beehive Anyway?”
“here in northeast Florida and southeast Georgia, we regularly find various critters making their home inside the beehive. At the Jacksonville, FL, NWS office, we usually replace the beehive on our annual visits. After
getting the dirty beehive back to the office, and before carefully taking it apart for cleaning, we leave it in a secure outside area for a day to let any “residents” inside vacate, then we dunk it in a bucket of water to flush out any reluctant squatters.
Red Wasps
Our most common uninvited guest is the red wasp. These wasps enjoy the shelter, security and height of the beehive. They usually build their nest toward the top of the unit. We have found all size nests, from small
ones with only four or five holes/cells to large nests that cover an entire louver. From personal experience, I have learned to be careful in transporting the dirty beehives. At a rural site about 2 hours away from Jacksonville, I removed a beehive from its post and set it on the ground while I put a clean beehive in its place. I rolled the dirty beehive on the grass, then shook it. Nothing came out or buzzed, so I placed it in the back of the Coop van. About 10 minutes after leaving the Coop site, I noticed a couple of wasps on the back
window. A few minutes later there were about 5 to 10 wasps on the back window. A few more minutes and there were more wasps–and they were making their way forward! Driving with the windows down, I finally found a good place to pull over so I could remove the beehive and air out the van…”
Each individual temperature USCRN station starts with a minimum .3°C error.
There are no procedures for testing individual stations to determine their exact field error range. No matter how long that station is left alone, the error assumed is the original specification error.
Bluntly put; temperature land stations are assumed functioning at peak accuracy. No effort is made to record and maintain an accurate list of station error bounds.
Nor is it possible to average together hundreds to thousands of temperature stations, each with a minimum error when new and end up with a claimed error of 0.6°C for their anomaly. Even worse, claim that global temperature is spiking 0.6°C when the smallest error bounds are 0.3°C for each station!
Nor can electrical temperature connections left in the field exposed to critters and weather be trusted to operate as if under pristine conditions. Otherwise, the old Triumph Spitfires would never have suffered from Lucas, Prince of Darkness electrical faults as they got older.

• Monckton of Brenchley says:

ATheoK’s central point is eminently sound. It is a scandal – and a revealing one – that very few of the trillions being spent on making non-existent global warming go away have been spent on establishing climate-reference networks of ideally-sited, standardized stations such as that of the United States.
Inferentially, the necessary expenditure (not particularly large compared with the various boondoggles by which the rich enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us) is not being made because the usual suspects are terrified that their belief may be exposed as false.

51. Littleoil says:

Thank you Lord Moncktom for another excellent paper.
The reason that warmists can produce opposing graphs showing temperature rising is that we are looking at a total increase of less than 1 degree C since 1880. If temperature was graphed in the normal fashion this rise would not be visible so it is graphed as an anomaly with an enlarged scale to make it seem significant.
The most important thing is that the rate of temperature increase over the past 18 years and 8 months bears no relationship to the rate of increase in manmade CO2 emissions over the same period.
It is amazing and a little sad that eminent organisations such as The Royal Society are prepared to go along with this farce.

• Monckton of Brenchley says:

Littleoil has grasped the main point firmly: the mismatch between rapidly rising CO2 concentration and non-rising temperature, over as long a period as almost 19 years, is not something that should be shrugged off lightly.
As for the Royal Society, it is a disgrace and should be defunded.

52. dp says:

The El Niño event is an impulse, not part of a trend and should be ignored as should all cyclic impulse events. They are of no long term consequence.

• Monckton of Brenchley says:

dp is right: the usual suspects have taken shamneless advantage of a big el Nino, trying to leave the impression that the sudden recent increase in global temperature is down to global warming, when most of it is part of a natural synoptic cycle.

• John@EF says:

A more shameless, hypocritical comment is not possible.

• jim says:

A more shameless, hypocritical comment is not possible
Spot on. Monckton has been using the 1998 El Niño spike (and mathturbation) to create the illusion of a pause for years. I give it 5 years before he’s doing the same thing with 2016.

• Janice Moore says:

John & Jim, setting ENSO completely aside for the moment, i.e., assuming, arguendo, that the 1997/98 ENSO event either never happened or had no great impact on land surface temperature, this fact remains:
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
For over 18 years.
The apparently, so far as we know at this time, the small short-term spikes in surface temp. (smaller than in 2003 and in 2010, btw) have not ended the stop in warming.

• jim says:

Janice,
There is zero evidence that “warming stopped for over 18 years”. Monckton’s pause is an artefact of cherry picking. Just because he cherry picks from “all available” data, doesn’t make it less of a cherry pick. What makes it a cherry pick is that he throws out the data prior to his ‘pause’, which makes the estimated trend incorrect. This is how Monckton sees the RSS data:
https://stonefly.shinyapps.io/shiny_ImageView/_w_22b96a98/images/moncktons-view_24777862841_o.png
This cannot be justified physically or statistically. Ask Monckton how and when temperatures got to the level at which they allegedly paused. Was it a magic jump all in one month? A trend by definition should be a continuous function of time. If you fit a continuous “broken stick” (or piece-wise) model to RSS, with a change in trend 18 years and 2 months ago, this is what you get:
https://stonefly.shinyapps.io/shiny_ImageView/_w_22b96a98/images/image1.png
No honest analysis of any global temperature data set shows an 18 year pause in global warming .
That is a fact.

• Bartemis says:

Who’re you going to believe? Johnny and Jimmy, or your lying eyes?
Excuse me while I suffer a minor mirthquake.

• John@EF says:

@Janice Moore
February 7, 2016 at 12:44 pm
I have a secret crush on you, Janet, but you know the 18+ year pause nonsense ends in just a couple of months. Concentrate on the actual message conveyed – it couldn’t be more accurate.

• John@EF says:
…the 18+ year pause nonsense…
Less than one year ago the alarmist crowd was tripping over their feet, trying to explain why the so-called “pause” was happening.
But now they’ve just decided to lie and say it’s “nonsense”.
You shouldn’t lie about it now, John, because the internet doesn’t forget:
http://americandigest.org/a_the_30.jpg

• John@EF says:

Janice, You’d think that if I had a crush on you I’d at least get your name right. Hahaha. Sorry.

• John@EF says:

@ dbstealey February 7, 2016 at 7:52 pm
Predictably fragile 18+ years, dbs – meaning, smoke. I feel sorry for MoB – his monthly posts just won’t have the same sizzle … and he knows it.

• John@EF, you’re making no more sense than ‘Jim’.
My point stands, which is why you’re emitting nonsense comments now. Less than a year ago everyone on all sides of the ‘climate’ debate accepted the plain fact that global warming had been stopped for many years.
Now you’re lying about it. That’s what the Narrative requires the lemmings to do, so that’s what you’re doing.

• jim says:

Less than a year ago everyone on all sides of the ‘climate’ debate accepted the plain fact that global warming had been stopped for many years.

Garbage. There is a world of difference between discussing reduced rate of warming for a short period and accepting that global warming “stopped for many years”. It never stopped, and no climate scientist ever said it did. Some said it may have temporarily slowed, others said there was no real evidence of even that. All said the long term trend was inevitably up. Sadly, they will be proven right.

• “jim” sez:
“Garbage”.
Jim’s comment is ‘garbage’, because it’s no more than a baseless assertion.
Poor ‘Jim’ is unable to refute the plain fact that global warming has stopped. So he’s lying, like the other climate alarmists who lie, because the real world is debunking their failed belief system.
Global warming has been stopped for many years now. Satellite data — the gold standard of temperature measurements — verifies that fact, and it is corroborrated by more than 17,000 radiosonde balloon measurements. Those are facts, as opposed to the baseless assertions of the alarmists.
But rather than accept the verdict of an impartial Planet Earth, the alarmist crowd has chosen to lie. But their lies don’t change reality. All they do is reflect on the lack of ethics that people like ‘jim’ and ‘John@EF’ display.

53. François says:

It all started with Schmidt and Karl, Schmidt and Karl again (I even thought for a moment I was reading Schmidt und Karl, the way my grand-mother used to talk about her experiences in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and then it was SchmidtKarlPropagandaAmt. That’s when I realised that the good old Lord was, well, sort of, drifting away.

• Bartemis says:

“I’m one of those who thinks global surface temperatures did show a pause or ‘hiatus’… surface temperatures did slow a bit in the last decade, and now they’re speeding up,” he says.
A blip from El Nino is not “speeding up”.
“It it [sic] doesn’t affect the long run at all… but you shouldn’t ignore the fact that this did happen.”
This is begging the question. There is no assurance at all that the El Nino blip will not be the final peak before a sudden decline.
“It was’t [sic] specifically predicted but it was in the range of the models in terms of variability.”
I.e., it wasn’t predicted. Full stop. The models are all over the place. Just about any possible eventuality could have been said to be “in the range” of the variability. And, if they couldn’t predict that, how much confidence should we have in the claim that “it doesn’t affect the long run”?

54. Harry Twinotter says:

“After all, theory requires that some global warming ought to occur.”
And what theory is that?
You cannot keep ignoring the surface temperature record. You cannot keep ignoring the ratio of broken warm record compared to broken cold records. Saying “manipulation” all the time is not very convincing.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

• Monckton of Brenchley says:

As usual, Mr Twitotter fails to read the head posting before attacking it. The rates of warming shown by not one, not two, but three surface temperature datasets are shown in the head posting, not once, not twice, but in three separate graphs.
That the world has warmed compared with the Little Ice Age seems both undeniable and unsurprising. But, as the head posting makes quite clear, on all datasets, including all the surface datasets, there has been around one-third to one-half of the warming that had been predicted. That, on any view, is a serious discrepancy, which indicates to the impartial mind that the models may have profitably exaggerated the warming effect of CO2.

• Harry Twinotter says:

Monckton of Brenchley.
“As usual, Mr Twitotter fails to read the head posting before attacking it.”
Oh look the “Lord” has insulted me, isn’t he a clever little sausage.
I think I shall refer to him as a Sith Lord from now on, it is fitting.
What a jerk.
I will leave it to others to tear apart your faulty reasoning.

• Ah, the jerk looked into the projection mirror, and has seen himself.
Lord Monckton is correct, so Harry deserves the insult for trying to run with the big dogs. Back in your kennel, Harry. Chihuahuas can’t keep up here.

55. Roy says:

I am puzzled by one of Lord Monckton’s claims:
Aside from the ocean warming, the land-based warming was prominent over Siberia and northern China, Europe and central America, inferentially owing much to urban heat-island effects.
Siberia is very thinly populated. Therefore I would expect it to be one of the last places where weather stations would be affected by the urban heat-island effect. Is there any evidence of changes in the areas where those stations are located such as increases in population, growth in transport, or a tendency for inhabitants, as they become richer, to make themselves more comfortable by turning up the heating during the Siberian winter?
I am not asking these questions in order to make a debating point. It just struck me that warmists would challenge the comments on the urban heat-island effect and ask what the evidence is.

• Monckton of Brenchley says:

There are now some large centers both of population and of industry in Siberia. Or the supposed warming could simply be mismeasurement: the Russian data series are not notorious for their continuity.

56. Russell says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL5-9ZxamXc What Is All The Fuss About? Professor Tim Noakes is a respected South African sports scientist, who’s been championing a high fat, moderate protein diet.The reason I post this video is because he exposes the danger’s of conscience science and also champion’s returning back to open minded universities. If science is to continue progressing, it must always be open to addressing the “unconventional”.http://www.biznews.com/health/2015/06/18/tim-noakes-in-his-own-words-why-i-choose-to-go-on-trial/

• Russell says:

LORD Christopher Monckton of Brenchley This is what you are up against.
Source: Courtesy of the Noakes Foundation
However, during last week’s hearings, it emerged that the HPCSA have been procuring secret reports, and that the charge against Noakes may now be ambiguous and prejudiced. It is speculated that there’s an organised campaign to discredit him by Big Food and Big Pharma to protect the ‘medical and dietetic dogma’ and their vested interests. It’s reported that, “What the hearing has made increasingly clear is that Noakes and the science behind LCHF are threatening careers, reputations, livelihoods, businesses and profit margins”

57. RoHa says:

“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 ”
Here you go, Lord Monckton.
Some parts of the ocean are not affected by surface currents. The water there is static. The blistering heat of Global Warming evaporates a lot of the water. The remaining water is hot, but also super-saline. Thus it is a lot denser than the surrounding cooler water, and forms a descending column of hot water which reaches the bottom of the ocean. It carries the heat down.
“or how the heat from the bottom of the ocean may eventually re-emerge to perturb the near-surface climate conditions relevant to land-based life on Earth.”
And I thought we all knew the answer to that. The heat will wake up Godzilla, he will rise to the surface, and scorch everything (Tokyo first, of course) with his fiery, radioactive, breath.
Now, when do I get my Nobel Prize and research grant?

58. Some time ago science with it’s settled this how the universe worked found that on doing some sums 80% of it was missing. So they invented dark matter and dark energy. They were wrong and those of old that imagined an Aether were closer to the truth. The missing part is de-spun photons they are the energy that cycles through the entire universe, it stirs our sun into cycles , it stirs our Earth into staying molten in the middle after billions of years, it keeps us warm, the sun in it’s moods allows more or less to escape, thus it is ultimately the sun stupid. That gives us warm periods and cold periods, including ice ages.

Thank you another very interesting article, m’Lud. I’ve made a note of your Killer Questions in order to suitably enrage the global warming fanatics.
I was particularly interested to read about something I’ve also noticed recently: A seemingly orchestrated attempt to undermine the apparent accuracy/reliability of the satellite datasets (RSS & UAH6).
The CAGW fanatics used to deny existence of the pause, then they tried to explain it away with a few dozen crackpot theories and now they just attack the satellite data. It would be good to hear what others think about this claim of theirs.

• Monckton of Brenchley says:

In answer to Dreadnought, the definitive statement on the relative reliabilities of the satellite and surface temperature datasets is Dr John Christy’s superb recent testomony to the House Space, Science and Competititveness Committee. Dr Christy, of course, designed and manages the UAH temperature datasets, together with Dr Roy Spencer. His conclusion is that the satellites are better than the thermometers.
Dreadnought’s account of the slow, stepwise retreat of the climate extremists is excellent. First they hid the Pause; then, when I drew attention to it during a speech to the UN climate conference in Qatar, they sneered that I didn’t know what I was talking about, then they admitted there was a Pause, then they came up with dozens of mutually incompatible excuses for it, then they altered the land surface and sea surface temperature datasets to airbrush it away, then they realized the satellite datasets could no longer be ignored, what with Senator Cruz showing one of my monhtly RSS pause-graphs on the floor of the Senate and all, then they began attacking the satellite datasets.
Their retreat is as long and painful as that of Napoleon from Moscow.

60. ren says:
61. Village Idiot says:

Looking forward to viewing the next few months constructions of Sir Chris’s ‘Freedom Clock’ 🙂
Who knows, we could enjoy a little ‘Freedom’ ourselves 😉

• scienceandpublicpolicy.org says:

The Freedom Clock will perhaps not advance for a time: but, if the current el Nino is followed by a la Nina, and perhaps a big one, then we’ll be heading for 20 years without any global warming at all, according to the two satellite datasets.
The climate scam would not be able to survive so long a period without any global warming.

62. Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton. This is a superb article.
According to “Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, that the tropical mid-troposphere should warm twice or even thrice as fast as the tropical surface.”
Well, then, the climate models are wrong. But there’s more, and that makes the very wrong.
There is no justification for using the climate models to assert anything at all.

63. Bellman says:

Monckton of Brenchley,
A few years back you made several references to the “endpoint fallacy”, where you said:

This is a statistical lie known as the start point or endpoint fallacy. Where you take a jiggly up and downy dataset like temperature, where you don’t know which way it’s going to go next, a stochastic dataset. If you choose your start point and your endpoints carefully enough you can make it look as though any trend you want is happening. Here they’ve tried to show a rising trend.

Could you explain how your pause, defined as

The hiatus period of 18 years 8 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

is not an example of the endpoint fallacy?

• scienceandpublicpolicy.org says:

Bellman appears poorly schooled in logic. The very sentence he cites explains that the start-point of my monthly Pause graphs is calculated: it is not plucked arbitrarily from the ether.
The central point is very simple. One-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have arisen during the period of the Pause. And that period is now of sufficient length to pass the NOAA test: i.e., 15 years or more without any global warming indicates a discrepancy between the predictions and the observations.
What is more, NOAA were talking of ENSO-adjusted data. After adjustment for ENSO, the discrepancy between prediction and observation is actually wider than before making the adjustment.
There is, therefore, a problem with the official global warming theory. The problem is that the warming is either not happening at all, as the satellites suggest, or not happening at anything like the predicted rate, as the terrestrial tamperature datasets suggest.
Given that the head posting considers two satellite and three terrestrial datasets over periods commencing with three distinct starting dates, each chosen because it was the year in which IPCC had made another set of predictions against which the observed trend could be tested, the suggestion that the RSS graph in the head posting is an instance of the endpoint fallacy is feeble-minded.

• Anthony Watts says:

Jim, the comment checks out. It is from Monckton. Somehow his affiliation URL has gotten transposed with his name in the comment form and appears to be saved that was as some default.

• Bellman says:

Bellman appears poorly schooled in logic. The very sentence he cites explains that the start-point of my monthly Pause graphs is calculated: it is not plucked arbitrarily from the ether.

You may be correct about my schooling, as I fail to see how calculating an end point to get the desired trend is different to manually selecting the end point.

The central point is very simple. One-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have arisen during the period of the Pause. And that period is now of sufficient length to pass the NOAA test: i.e., 15 years or more without any global warming indicates a discrepancy between the predictions and the observations.

Not really the question I was asking, but isn’t the NOAA 15 years referring to surface temperatures?

Given that the head posting considers two satellite and three terrestrial datasets over periods commencing with three distinct starting dates, each chosen because it was the year in which IPCC had made another set of predictions against which the observed trend could be tested, the suggestion that the RSS graph in the head posting is an instance of the endpoint fallacy is feeble-minded.

But I was asking about the choice of the start date for the Great Pause, nothing to do with the dates of IPCC predictions. If I wasn’t so feeble-minded I might wonder if you were trying to change the subject.

• Bellman

But I was asking about the choice of the start date for the Great Pause, nothing to do with the dates of IPCC predictions. If I wasn’t so feeble-minded I might wonder if you were trying to change the subject.

We (the skeptical community of science observers and realists) do NOT “pick” a start date for this trend. Granted, “you” have been schooled (propagandandized) into “believing” the start date is “picked” but that is exactly opposite of the process, and your choice of believing their lie does fit YOUR mindset and prejudices. (I will rant your prejudices appear to control your thought processes, but do not (yet) accept your conjecture that you are feeble minded. Firm-minded, prejudiced, incapable of independent thought based on the facts presented? True. But feeble minded? Probably not.)
What actually happens each month is the following, and it was described in the original text as well. The global average satellite temperature is read from those instruments, and a “flat line” is projected BACKWARDS as far as that trend line remains indistinguishable from zero. We DO NOT “pick a point” and draw a line, we “pick this month’s global average temperature (whatever it actually is) and go BACKWARDS until the trend line rises. Whatever date that point is, we report. Same process every month, regardless of whether the results confirm or contradict your assumptions. The process is neutral and breathe-tauntingly honest. Indeed, the essence of this month’s report is that February’s report may actually show a near-continuous rise!
It is the CAGW climastrologists and catastrophe-seekers who cherry pick temperatures needed to make their propaganda more effective, who ignore inconvenient truths and measurements, and who extrapolate linear trends 200-400 and 800 years into the future incorrectly.
Now, I do understand WHY they (you) do that; and I do understand why YOU (they) believe you have to do. Thus, I do understand why a firm-minded inflexible zealot believes that his (her?) opponents are as dishonest and as devious as one’s own associates need to be to promote their cause. But your firm-mindedness and your incorrect assumptions are grounded in nothing but your own experience in your own deceptions and lack of honesty.

• “Not really the question I was asking, but isn’t the NOAA 15 years referring to surface temperatures?”
Indeed so, and furthermore after ENSO adjustment. If they had done a similar calculation for troposphere, they would probably have found a longer period, because the variation σ is about twice as high as for surface.

• Bellman says:

RACookPE1978

What actually happens each month is the following, and it was described in the original text as well. The global average satellite temperature is read from those instruments, and a “flat line” is projected BACKWARDS as far as that trend line remains indistinguishable from zero. We DO NOT “pick a point” and draw a line, we “pick this month’s global average temperature (whatever it actually is) and go BACKWARDS until the trend line rises. Whatever date that point is, we report.

I think this illustrates the confusion that dcpetterson describes. That most definitely not how Monckton calculates the pause length. If you are just going back from the present to find the first month where the trend is positive you wouldn’t have to go back very far. If by “indistinguishable from ZERO you mean” go back to find a point where the warming trend is statistically significant then you could go back much further than June of 1997. Probably back as far as 1990,
What Monckton does is go back to find the earliest point where the trend from that point to the present is not positive. If that’s not what he’s doing then I think his algorithms need some work. I noticed any mention of statistical significance in its definition.

• richardscourtney says:

Bellman:
Your latest missive convinces me that you are deliberately obfuscating.

Could you explain why the data defining the start-point does not mean choosing the start point to get the result we want, and why choosing an arbitrary length for a time period makes it easier to get the result you want?

I have repeatedly stated that!
The question being addressed in the ‘Pause’ calculation is
How long has there been a period of sub-zero trend in the data until now?
The nearest datum to “now” is the latest datum and. Therefore, it is the start point. With effluxion of time the data set includes a new latest datum and, therefore, the question needs to be calculated for the new data set (which includes the newer latest datum).
In other words – as I have repeatedly told you – the data set defines the datum which must be used as the start date and the researcher has no choice in the matter.
Then, as I told you in my first post addressed to you in this thread

The analysis of ‘Pause’ length does not involve choosing an analysed period. In this case, the start point is now (i.e. the most recent month for which data is available). Each previous successive month is then assessed as being the other end of a time-series to determine the longest period back from ‘now’ that shows a “sub-zero trend”.
In other words, the “endpoints” are determined by the data – they are NOT chosen by the researcher – and, therefore, the ‘endpoint fallacy’ is not possible in this case.

It seems you are making repetitive posts to disrupt the thread and are ignoring the answers you get.
Not content with that, you write this nonsense

By contrast the start-point of the Great Pause is the calculated date that will give the longest period with a negative trend. I find it difficult to understand how this is not the “desired result” – in this case the desire being to show the longest possible pause.

I recognise that this is difficult for a supporter of climastrology to understand but I will ‘spell it out’ despite your difficulty.
The “desired result” is the result the researcher hopes to obtain.
(i.e. The pseudoscientist uses the data to generate an answer which promotes an idea: i.e. the ‘analyst’ desires to promote an idea).
The calculated result is the result the data set provides.
(i.e. The researcher obtains the answer from the data which adds to knowledge: i.e. the analyst desires to reduce ignorance).
You provide both nonsense and irrelevance when you write

As I said I;m not defending the IPCC graph. But try the same logic to the RSS data. Start at the beginning and see how far you can go before the trend becomes positive.

YES! The method of the IPCC graph is plain wrong: that is what I said. And the method being wrong means it gives wrong indications whatever data set it is used on.

Calculating an end point most definitely can enable bias. Consider my “changing the subject” comment before – assume the IPCC hadn’t chosen an arbitrary 25 year period for their graph, but had calculated the start point that would give them the fastest growth rate of a reasonable period. Would you consider that to be more of less biased?

THE IPPC METHOD IS PLAIN WRONG. I REFUSE TO CONSIDER WHETHER OTHER END POINTS WOULD MAKE IT MORE OR LESS WRONG.
In conclusion, in the unlikely event that you truly are as confused about the ‘endpoint fallacy’ as you claim then I yet again commend you to try to assuage your confusion by considering the straightforward case of Santer et al. (1996).
Richard

• richardscourtney says:

dcpetterson:
I don’t need to “check” anything because in this thread I have repeatedly refuted your bollocks; e.g. here. But either you can’t read or you won’t read.
GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED: IT IS AN EX-PARROT.
Try saying out loud “Global warming has stopped” 100 times and the truth may register inside your skull.
Richard

• Bellman says:

richardscourtney:

The pertinent “given claim” in this thread is an analysis to address the question;
How long has there been a period of sub-zero trend in the data until now?
And I have repeatedly explained exactly what statistical approach you would take to allow us to see for that claim whether it is the result of trying to obtain the “desired result”, or a “calculated result”.
The required “statistical approach” is the method adopted by Viscount Monckton.

So, if I were to claim that according to the RSS data, temperatures had been rising at over 2C per century since May 2007, (8 years and 9 months), would you see that as a valid calculated result or as an example of the endpoint fallacy?
Or when Monckton says that temperatures were cooling between 2001 and 2009 at the rate of 1C per century, was that an example of a statistical lie or a valid claim?

• richardscourtney says:

Bellman:
The ‘endpoint fallacy’ is when a researcher chooses the ends of an analysed period to indicate a desired result.
The analysis of ‘Pause’ length does not involve choosing an analysed period. In this case, the start point is now (i.e. the most recent month for which data is available). Each previous successive month is then assessed as being the other end of a time-series to determine the longest period back from ‘now’ that shows a “sub-zero trend”.
In other words, the “endpoints” are determined by the data – they are NOT chosen by the researcher – and, therefore, the ‘endpoint fallacy’ is not possible in this case.
Richard

• Bellman says:

In other words, the “endpoints” are determined by the data – they are NOT chosen by the researcher – and, therefore, the ‘endpoint fallacy’ is not possible in this case.

So if the IPCC had produced a with a trend line starting at a month that was calculated to give the fastest warming rate, that would not be an example of the endpoint fallacy?

• richardscourtney says:

Bellman:
Who is “changing the subject” now?
What the IPCC may have done – but did not do – is not relevant.
However, the IPCC did publish a spurious graph which did provide a variation of the ‘endpoint fallacy’ and Viscount Monckton copies it in his above essay saying it is “one of the most mendacious graphs in the IPCC reports:”. That graph was not seen by IPCC peer reviewers: it was added after we had reviewed the AR4 WG1 report but before its publication.
A more clear example of use of the ‘endpoint fallacy’ is the paper published by Santer et al. in Nature in 1996. That paper, its use of the ‘endpoint fallacy’ and its exposure were clearly and succinctly reported by the late John Daly here.
Richard

• Bellman says:

Who is “changing the subject” now?

I wasn’t changing the subject, I was offering a reductio ad absurdem

However, the IPCC did publish a spurious graph which did provide a variation of the ‘endpoint fallacy’ and Viscount Monckton copies it in his above essay saying it is “one of the most mendacious graphs in the IPCC reports:”

Exactly. This was the graph Monckton was referring to in the quote about the endpoint fallacy. His objection to it was that by carefully selecting the starting points had got the trend lines they wanted. I’m asking how that is different to calculating the start point that gives the longest possible negative trend line, when a negative trend line is what was required.
So far the only difference offered is that one end point was calculated and the other was plucked arbitrarily from the ether. To my simple mind calculating a point to get the desired result would be more indicative of a fallacy than arbitrarily choosing one.

• Each previous successive month is then assessed as being the other end of a time-series to determine the longest period back from ‘now’ that shows a “sub-zero trend”.

This may be misleading. You (and Monckton) appear to be implying that we can go back from the current month, and start a trendline any month between now June of 1997, and we’ll get a flat trendline. Please correct me if I’m wrong. You appear to be saying that in order to get something other than a flat trendline, we have to go back farther than June of 1997.
If that is what you’re saying, be aware that it is not true. If you start a trendline before or after the point Monckton starts, you will not get a zero trend. You will get a positive trend. (There are a couple of exceptions; a small period after June of 1997 in which there is a spurious negative trend, and another such period in late 2001). There are exactly six months — six out of the 240 months in the last twenty years — in which you can get a zero trend. Nearly all the rest of the start points will give you a positive trend.
June of 1997 was specifically picked as one of the very few months that gives a zero trendline. In a noisy dataset it is not surprising that a few specifically-chosen datapoints can yield spurious or anomalous trendlines from time to time. That should not be taken to imply that some specific and physically real Event happened in June of 1997 to change the speed at which the climate is warming.

• Toneb says:

Bellman:
i agree.
The way any calculation of any trend should be done is to fix the start point PERMANENTLY and go forwards..
The way Monckton does it is the exact reverse.
And it is disingenuous to say the data “chooses” the end-points, and is therefore not cherry-picking …. because you start at a moving endpoint (present) – which is really the start – and end it when the data no longert agrees with the trend you want. BOTH ends are moving and not just the chronological end.
If you also use a feasibly unphysical “spike” in the GMT data (which is what the Sat sensing of the 97/98 Nino is) – you could run for quite some time with an equally unfeasible zero “trend”.
I would venture to suggest that if the “spike” were an equally unfeasible dip in GMT it would be ruled obvious.
BTW: If you say the trend following that Nino (blue) is robust and reliable then you should also accept that the trend before it (red) was likewise. Yes?
In that case it would only be a “pause” of the long-term trend from the start (purple) of the whole series IF the current end (Monckton’s start) “pause” (blue) trend were BELOW that prior trend extended to the present……
And it isn’t.
Actually it wont be until ~2025 even if the “pause” remains.
The “pause” therefore is logically a STEP-UP in GMT that has still not leveled-off long enough to fall back to the original trend.
It is of course NOT.
just as it is neither a “pause”.
The only reasonable trend that can be taken from the series is the purple one.

• richardscourtney says:

Bellman:
I admit to wondering if you are deliberately being obtuse.
You suggested Viscount Monckton was “changing the subject” when he used an IPCC action as illustration. And you have now objected to my suggesting you were “changing the subject” when you suggested a hypothetical action that the IPCC may have adopted but did not!
I pointed out

However, the IPCC did publish a spurious graph which did provide a variation of the ‘endpoint fallacy’ and Viscount Monckton copies it in his above essay saying it is “one of the most mendacious graphs in the IPCC reports:”

and you have replied

Exactly. This was the graph Monckton was referring to in the quote about the endpoint fallacy. His objection to it was that by carefully selecting the starting points had got the trend lines they wanted. I’m asking how that is different to calculating the start point that gives the longest possible negative trend line, when a negative trend line is what was required.
So far the only difference offered is that one end point was calculated and the other was plucked arbitrarily from the ether. To my simple mind calculating a point to get the desired result would be more indicative of a fallacy than arbitrarily choosing one.

NO!
There are three differences.
First, and most important, the data defines the start-point of the ‘Pause’ but the IPCC chose the lengths of its time period.
Second, the datum which is the start-point of the Pause is the calculated result which comes from the data and is NOT “the desired result”. However, the arbitrary start-points of the IPCC graph are chosen to provide desired results; i.e. an indication of accelerating warming.
If you cannot understand the profound difference between the calculated result of the Pause and the IPCC choices of start points, then consider repeating those trend determinations from the other end of the IPCC graph (i.e.from 1850 or 1860) instead of 2005. There would be no Pause (and no present Pause because the present would not be included) but the indication of the IPCC’s arbitrary start points would be decelerating warming; i.e. the opposite of the ‘indication’ the IPCC purported to be presenting.
Third, choosing an end point enables intentional or unintentional bias of the researcher but calculating it from the data does not enable that bias.
I again suggest you consider the less complicated example of Santer et al. if you honestly are failing to understand the matter.
Richard

• richardscourtney says:

Toneb
You assert

Bellman:
i agree.
The way any calculation of any trend should be done is to fix the start point PERMANENTLY and go forwards..

Nonsense!
The question addressed by the ‘Pause’ calculation is,
How long has there been a period of sub-zero trend in the data until now?
And ‘now’ changes with efluxion of time so it is a new – and different – question each month.
Richard

• richardscourtney says:

dcpetterson:
I am “implying” nothing. I am making clear and unambiguous statements.
Richar

• Bellman says:

richardscourtney

NO!
There are three differences.
First, and most important, the data defines the start-point of the ‘Pause’ but the IPCC chose the lengths of its time period.

Could you explain why the data defining the start-point does not mean choosing the start point to get the result we want, and why choosing an arbitrary length for a time period makes it easier to get the result you want?

Second, the datum which is the start-point of the Pause is the calculated result which comes from the data and is NOT “the desired result”. However, the arbitrary start-points of the IPCC graph are chosen to provide desired results; i.e. an indication of accelerating warming.

Just to be clear I’m not arguing for that IPCC graph. I agree you cannot demonstrate accelerated warming by choosing periods of different length. But your claim (I assume) is that they deliberately chose the most recent start point to show maximum warming, though they did this by choosing an arbitrary 25 year period.
By contrast the start-point of the Great Pause is the calculated date that will give the longest period with a negative trend. I find it difficult to understand how this is not the “desired result” – in this case the desire being to show the longest possible pause.

If you cannot understand the profound difference between the calculated result of the Pause and the IPCC choices of start points, then consider repeating those trend determinations from the other end of the IPCC graph (i.e.from 1850 or 1860) instead of 2005. There would be no Pause (and no present Pause because the present would not be included) but the indication of the IPCC’s arbitrary start points would be decelerating warming; i.e. the opposite of the ‘indication’ the IPCC purported to be presenting.

As I said I;m not defending the IPCC graph. But try the same logic to the RSS data. Start at the beginning and see how far you can go before the trend becomes positive.

Third, choosing an end point enables intentional or unintentional bias of the researcher but calculating it from the data does not enable that bias.

Calculating an end point most definitely can enable bias. Consider my “changing the subject” comment before – assume the IPCC hadn’t chosen an arbitrary 25 year period for their graph, but had calculated the start point that would give them the fastest growth rate of a reasonable period. Would you consider that to be more of less biased?

• I am “implying” nothing. I am making clear and unambiguous statements.

Very good, Richard. I’ll give some details about the RSS record, then ask you to unambiguously agree with some further unambiguous statements.
Examining the RSS temperature record from 1979, there are about 440 months in the total data record. Six of those months, or about 0.14% of the total, will give you a zero trendline from that month to the present. About 430 of the months in the RSS data set, or roughly 98% of the total, will give you a positive trendline. The others — all centered around three recent and very strong El Ninos — will give a negative trendline, because they are recent and start at very, very warm points.
Now, given that, I will ask you to unambiguously agree with the following unambiguous statements.
1) Monckton went looking for the months from which there is a zero trendline. He consciously and intentionally picked one of those specific months to be the start point for a “pause”, i.e., the one farthest in the past.
2) This is an example of “cherry picking” and of an endpoint fallacy, because he went looking for that specific handful of months to satisfy a desired result, and then chose the one he liked best.
3) Further, this particular example of “cherry picking” produces a result that is at odds with the result one gets from choosing nearly any one of the other 440 or so months in the RSS record. Only 0.14% of the total data series agrees with Monckton’s position. The other 99.86% of the data does not.
4) Choosing one out of six examples, which together amount to less than two tenths of one percent of the total data, and using that one specifically chosen example to make a point that matches a pre-determined desired result — a result which runs counter to 99.86% of the data — that is a perfect example of “cherry picking” and of an endpoint fallacy. This is clearly and unambiguously true.
Are we agreed?

• richardscourtney says:

Bellman:
My latest reply to you has appeared in the wrong place. It is here.
Richard

• Toneb says:

richardscourtney:
So you agree there has been a step change UP in GMT IF you go with Monckton’s “analalysis” ?

• richardscourtney says:

dcpetterson:
You raised a ‘strawman’ that you constructed from your untrue assertion that I was “implying” something. I blew away your ‘strawman’ by pointing out that I had implied nothing.

Are we agreed?

I think we agree that you are a time-wasting troll but not much else.
This is because having failed to put words in my mouth you now provide 4 spurious points each of which I have already repeatedly refuted in this sub-thread.
Firstly, you assert

1) Monckton went looking for the months from which there is a zero trendline. He consciously and intentionally picked one of those specific months to be the start point for a “pause”, i.e., the one farthest in the past.

NO! ASOLUTELY NOT! EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE!
He consciously and intentionally used the most recent month to be the start point for calculating the ‘Pause’, i.e., the one nearest to now.
You follow that falsehood with this untrue assertion

2) This is an example of “cherry picking” and of an endpoint fallacy, because he went looking for that specific handful of months to satisfy a desired result, and then chose the one he liked best.

NO! THAT IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE!
The question being addressed in the ‘Pause’ calculation is
How long has there been a period of sub-zero trend in the data until now?
The nearest datum to “now” is the latest datum and. Therefore, it is the start point. With effluxion of time the data set includes a new latest datum and, therefore, the question needs to be calculated for the new data set (which includes the newer latest datum).
In other words – as I have repeatedly said in this sub-thread – the data set defines the datum which must be used as the start date and the researcher has no choice in the matter. And – as I have also repeatedly said in this sub-thread – each previous successive month is then assessed as being the other end of a time-series to determine the longest period back from ‘now’ that shows a “sub-zero trend”.
In other words, the “endpoints” are determined by the data – they are NOT chosen by the researcher – and, therefore, ‘cherry picking’ and the ‘endpoint fallacy’ are each not possible in this case.
And you follow that with this insanity

3) Further, this particular example of “cherry picking” produces a result that is at odds with the result one gets from choosing nearly any one of the other 440 or so months in the RSS record. Only 0.14% of the total data series agrees with Monckton’s position. The other 99.86% of the data does not.

There is NO “cherry picking”: there is only a determination of how long the ‘Pause’ has existed until now. And, of course, the remainder of the data set does not indicate the ‘Pause’ because the ‘Pause’ is indicated to have only existed in the determined period of the ‘Pause’.
But that madness was merely you ‘warming up’ because you follow it with this crescendo of grotesque insanity

4) Choosing one out of six examples, which together amount to less than two tenths of one percent of the total data, and using that one specifically chosen example to make a point that matches a pre-determined desired result — a result which runs counter to 99.86% of the data — that is a perfect example of “cherry picking” and of an endpoint fallacy. This is clearly and unambiguously true.

Your claim that the analysis is other than it is demonstrates you are spouting complete bollocks. This is clearly and unambiguously true.
Richard

• @Bellman and Dcpattersen,
Guys, it’s really not that complicated. In order to AVOID the end point fallacy or accusations of cherry picking, what Monckton has done is ask “how far back can you go before you get a non zero trend?” – as R Courtnay has pointed out.
So you take the most recent data (not cherry picking since it is implied in the question) and look BACK through time. Calculating a trend is insensitive to the direction you are calculating…data either goes up or down….we just want to know if there is any kind of trend.
As a consequence, the length of time of no trend may vary depending on the variability of the new data as it comes in. Some times the length shortens but in general it has lengthened.
It is simply a way of illustrating a point that despite unprecedented emissions there has been no corresponding increase in temperatures, and doing it in a way that is logically sound, and objective, since the question obviates the need to choose dates.
If you wanted to be critical you could say “yeah but period also covers the 1998 anomalous El Niño which is going to skew results”, but then you would have to say the same thing about the following La Niña.
Moncktons approach is an exceedingly good one because it absolutely avoids the need to choose end points.

• richardscourtney says:

Toneb:
I agree to ignore irrelevant questions provided as ‘red herrings’.
Richard

• I’ll show this plot again, because it explains exactly what is happening. It shows all possible trends ending at end 2015. The start month is on the x axis. I show 3 surface data and two troposphere. The troposphere curves are at the bottom, and RSS is the lower.
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/1/trend0.png
So that question
“How long has there been a period of sub-zero trend in the data until now?”
isn’t right. It is asking where is the fist crossing of the x-axis. For RSS I’ve marked that with a red ring.
But as you go back, in fact starting at most months gives you a positive trend. There are very few exceptions, and of course, the surface measures come nowhere close.
So it isn’t true that there is no endpoint selection – there is scientific endpoint selection.

• richardscourtney says:

Nick S.:
The “endpoints” are determined by the data and they are NOT chosen by the researcher so ‘cherry picking’ and the ‘endpoint fallacy’ are not possible when conducting the calculation of how long has there been a period of sub-zero trend in the data until now.
But you say

So it isn’t true that there is no endpoint selection – there is scientific endpoint selection.

Nick, that is an example of sophistry which should make even you blush!
“Scientific endpoint selection” is the result of the calculation of how long has there been a period of sub-zero trend in the data until now.

Richard

• Nick Stokes,
Thanks for posting that graph. As you can see, the RSS trendlines cross the zero point six times. Those are the six months in the 440+ month-long RSS satellite history where there is a zero trendline from that month to January of 2016.
Monckton picked one of those six months to be the start of his “pause”, and he picked one of them because he went looking for a zero trendline. None of the other months in the 440+ month-long RSS dataset gives a zero trendline. None of them.
Consciously and intentionally choosing one endpoint in order to create a desired result is an example of an endpoint fallacy.
If you plot a trendline from, say, December of 2015, or January of 2015, or January of 2008 to January of 2016, you will get a positive trendline. Go to woodfortrees and try it.

• Toneb says:

richardscourtney:
By no means “an irrelevant question” my friend – a fundamental one and one that is a direct consequence of accepting Monckton’s “pause” as valid.
The trend prior to the cherry-picked one MUST be equally valid.
That trend remains below below the extended “pause” zero trend until at least 2025.
So the pause HAD to happen as it is leveling-off after an (unphysical) step-jump in Global ave temp at the time of the 97/98 Nino..
The “pause is not valid.
And the step-jump is not valid..
They are NOT mutually exclusive.

How long has there been a period of sub-zero trend in the data until now?

Go to woodfortrees.org and plot a trendline in the RSS data from December 2015 to January of 2016. You will see the trendline is up. One cannot go even one month into the past from January of 2016 and get a “sub-zero trend.”
The only way to get anything other than a positive trend is to cherry-pick a month near a massive El Nino year. All other months show upward trends.
And even then, you can’t get anything other than a positive trend if you start before June of 1997.
Monckton did not keep checking each month going backwards until he found a “sub-zero trend.” He did the opposite. He kept checking each month going backwards until he found a zero trend. He did that because he wanted to find a zero trend, and he kept looking until he found one.
That is cherry-picking, and it is an example of endpoint fallacy.

• richardscourtney says:

dcpetterson:
You write:

How long has there been a period of sub-zero trend in the data until now?

NO! Read the above essay and you will learn

The RSS data still show no global warming for 18 years 8 months, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration over the period.

Richard

• richardscourtney says:

Toneb:
In attempt to justify your irrelevant ‘red herring’ you fallaciously assert ‘cherry picking’. I can only assume that reading comprehension is beyond your limited intellectual ability,
Richard

• Richard Courtney,
The gaggle of climate allarmists here who are trying to claim ‘cherry picking’ don’t seem to have a clue about why the start year was picked, and by whom.
In an interview Dr. Phil Jones was asked if global warming had stopped. He replied, “Yes, but only just.” He added that fifteen years would need to pass before it could be stated with greater than a 95% statistical certainty that global warming had stopped.
Dr. Jones’ designated starting period. No doubt Jones felt very confident that global warming would resume within his time 15 year period. He was wrong. It has now been longer than 18 years since 1997.
Since Jones is an arch-Warmist (see the Climategate emails), his designated starting period wasn’t something invented by skeptics of the “dangerous AGW” hoax. It was stated by one of the alarmist clique’s main players. Skeptics have referred to it ever since.
Now they’re stuck with Dr. Jones’ definition of when the so-called “pause” began. These partisan pseudo-scientists need to go ask Jones about it. He’s still around. Maybe he can tap-dance his way out of what he said, but we’re just going by his own definition.
As stated upthread, less than a year ago everyone on all sides of the ‘climate change’ debate were in agreement: global warming had stopped. They were busy trying to find reasons to explain it:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/top10_pause_explanations.jpg
But now, 18+ years after global warming stopped, the alarmist crowd has changed course. Since the real world is still debunking their scare, they have decided to lie outright. The new Narrative is “Global warming never stopped!” So the lemmings all jump aboard and repeat the lie, because that’s what lemmings do.
They can lie all they want, but the internet doesn’t forget. And when they lie, their credibility evaporates. That’s part of the reason the public is turning on them. No one likes liars.

• richardscourtney,
Yes, Monckton did claim,

The RSS data still show no global warming for 18 years 8 months, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration over the period.

The problem is that this claim is untrue. The RSS data shows a big spike in RSS temperatures toward the beginning of that 18 year 8 month period, which skews a trendline that starts exactly at that 18 year 8 month period. You simply cannot get a flat trend line if you start somewhere else.
Monckton’s defenders here are claiming that Monckton checked each month, going backwards in time from January of 2016, until he found a month that did not have a “sub-zero trend”.
If he had done that, he would have stopped at December of 2015, because the trend from December of 2015 to January of 2016 is not a “sub-zero trend”. Do you disagree?
What he did instead is to check every month, going backwards from January of 2016, until he found one with a zero trend.
There are six such months in the RSS satellite record. He picked the earliest of those months for the start date of his “pause”.
You, and others, seem to be arguing that starting a trendline at any month after June of 1997 will give you a flat trend. It won’t. Please, try it for yourself and see. There really are only a very few months in the entire RSS record since 1979 that give a flat trendline, and Monckton carefully chose one of them.
You don’t have to believe me or to trust me. Please, try it yourself. I invite you to prove me wrong, which should be very easy to do if I am wrong.

• richardscourtney says:

dcpetterson:
My reply to your most recent pollution of this thread is in the wrong place: it is here.
Richard

• richardscourtney says:

dbstealey:
Yes. As far as I can see this latest “gaggle” of warmunists lacks a clue about anything. They even lack ability to read.
Richard

• ::: sigh. :::
Okay, you’re unwilling to examine the data. I understand. The data is available if you ever want to look at it.
Thanks for the conversation. I hope if we converse again you would be a little more polite, but I understand that as well. Passion can sometimes substitute for reason when one does not consider the data.
Thanks again.

• dcpetterson,
I’ve posted quite a bit of data-based charts at the end of this comment thread. Go there, and you will see that many of your assertions and beliefs are wrong.
I understand that you were probably misinformed because you got your misinformation from propaganda blogs like neo-Nazi John Cook’s ‘skepticalscience’ blog. But you won’t find the truth there, all you will find are attempts to lead you in their desired direction.
If you read this site you will find that it doesn’t censor views just because they’re wrong, or not favorable to the site owner. All points of view are welcomed and encouraged. That is not the case at most alarmist blogs, as many commenters here can tell you.
Your arguments stand or fall based primarily on their credibility. If you say extreme weather events are rising, or that the natural sea level rise is now accelerating, you need evidence, not partisan blogs written by someone who calls himself the ‘Scribbler’.
Pick a subject and we’ll hash it out. Best evidence and data wins. And always keep one thing in mind: skeptics of a hypothesis have nothing to prove.

• richardscourtney says:

dcpetterson:
That is NOT acceptable!
I have considered the data and YOU have misrepresented it as I have explained to you in this thread e.g. here.
Richard

• dbstealey February 8, 2016 at 9:34 am
Richard Courtney,
The gaggle of climate allarmists here who are trying to claim ‘cherry picking’ don’t seem to have a clue about why the start year was picked, and by whom.

As indicated below neither do you richard, your memory is letting you down.
In an interview Dr. Phil Jones was asked if global warming had stopped. He replied, “Yes, but only just.” He added that fifteen years would need to pass before it could be stated with greater than a 95% statistical certainty that global warming had stopped.
In February of 2010, Phil Jones was asked some questions in an interview with the BBC. The distorted view of his reply is what you are referring to.
The question was:
“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”
To which Jones replied:
“Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.” (The trend was actually significant at the 93% level).
Why was 1995 chosen by the interviewer as the starting point for this question? Prior to that interview Lindzen and Motl had both pointed out that 1995 the closest year for which the answer to this question is “yes”.
Dr. Jones’ designated starting period was 1997-98. No doubt Jones felt very confident that global warming would resume within that time 15 year period. He was wrong.It has now been longer than 18 years.
So the designated starting point was 1995 and it was designated by the interviewer, not Jones!
In fact in another interview with the BBC about a year later Jones notes that the HadCRUT warming trend since 1995 was by then statistically significant:
“Basically what’s changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
“It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that’s why longer series – 20 or 30 years – would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis.”
As a follow-up, are Monckton’s trends significant at the 95% level?

• richardscourtney says:

Phil.:
You really are a funny guy!
dbstealey wrote

Richard Courtney,
The gaggle of climate allarmists here who are trying to claim ‘cherry picking’ don’t seem to have a clue about why the start year was picked, and by whom.
In an interview Dr. Phil Jones was asked if global warming had stopped. He replied, “Yes, but only just.” He added that fifteen years would need to pass before it could be stated with greater than a 95% statistical certainty that global warming had stopped.
Dr. Jones’ designated starting period was 1997-98. No doubt Jones felt very confident that global warming would resume within that time 15 year period. He was wrong. It has now been longer than 18 years.

Please note, dbstealey wrote that, not me.
I replied to him saying

dbstealey:
Yes. As far as I can see this latest “gaggle” of warmunists lacks a clue about anything. They even lack ability to read.
Richard

And you have proved my reply is right by you writing in response quoting what dbstealey had written and attributing it to me saying in response

As indicated below neither do you richard, your memory is letting you down.

Laugh? I couldn’t make this stuff up.
Anyway, thankyou for so clearly demonstrating that my reply to dbstealey is right; i.e. you warmunists even lack ability to read.
Richard

• richardscourtney February 8, 2016 at 12:37 pm
And you have proved my reply is right by you writing in response quoting what dbstealey had written and attributing it to me saying in response

I should have realized that there was too much content in that post to be from you!
It would help if stealey used a consistent method of distinguishing between his own material and quotes from others, like block quotes, or italics or quotation marks.
Sorry for attributing stealey’s error to you.

• richardscourtney says:

Phil,:
What I wrote is right.
Your response started with an error which demonstrated what I wrote is right.
I replied pointing out that your error demonstrated what I wrote is right.
You have responded to that by claiming quantity equates to quality and admitting your error but failing to acknowledge or apologise for your error while pretending you have not misrepresented what Phil Jones said.
Your error was a demonstration that you cannot read what people write and you misrepresent what they say. Your pretending you understood what Phil Jones said is further demonstration of that because dbstealey was right about what Phil Jones said and you are wrong (as usual).
Richard

• Bellman says:

richardscourtney
Instead of assuming I’m obfuscating, why not assume I’m really stupid and that I genuinely don’t understand the point you are making?

In other words – as I have repeatedly told you – the data set defines the datum which must be used as the start date and the researcher has no choice in the matter.

But what do you mean when you say “the data set defines the datum” and “the researcher has no choice in the matter”? The researcher has chosen to define the Pause using a specific criterion – namely the longest period leading up to the present which will produce a negative trend. Now haven chosen this definition there will only be one month that meets that criterion. You seem to be implying that because this starting month is unique for any given data set, that means it is defined by the data and not chosen by the researcher. Am I understanding this correctly?
My point, however, is that the definition the researcher has chosen is simply defining a cherry picked start point, that is a starting month that produces the desired result, namely the longest possible negative trend. The end point fallacy is implicit in this definition.
It’s possible I’m not understanding what Monckton means by the endpoint fallacy, or that you are misunderstanding it. Maybe you could explain what you think it means. I must admit that although Monckton describes it as a well known fallacy I can find little reference to any fallacy by that name. But I assumed that what he means by it is choosing the end points in a trend calculation in order to get the best result. This is certainly a problem in statistical analysis as any confidence you can attach to such data will be overstated.

I recognise that this is difficult for a supporter of climastrology to understand but I will ‘spell it out’ despite your difficulty.
The “desired result” is the result the researcher hopes to obtain.
(i.e. The pseudoscientist uses the data to generate an answer which promotes an idea: i.e. the ‘analyst’ desires to promote an idea).
The calculated result is the result the data set provides.
(i.e. The researcher obtains the answer from the data which adds to knowledge: i.e. the analyst desires to reduce ignorance).

I think I get what you are saying here. You are defining “desired result” in moral terms. You are saying only pseudoscientists would stoop to looking for results they desire, whereas Monckton is an honourable man, so any result he obtains cannot be the result of a fallacy.
The trouble is that statistics doesn’t care about morality. If it’s fallacious for someone to choose endpoints to get a result you don’t like, it’s just as fallacious to do the same thing to get a result you do like.

• Bellman says:

agnostic2015

Guys, it’s really not that complicated. In order to AVOID the end point fallacy or accusations of cherry picking, what Monckton has done is ask “how far back can you go before you get a non zero trend?” – as R Courtnay has pointed out.

I’m not disagreeing at all with your explanation as to how Monckton calculates the start point for the pause, I’m just not sure I understand how his procedure avoids the end point fallacy or cherry picking when it’s implicit in the method that it will choose the end point that gives the longest period of negative warming.

• Bellman says:

dbstealy:

In an interview Dr. Phil Jones was asked if global warming had stopped. He replied, “Yes, but only just.” He added that fifteen years would need to pass before it could be stated with greater than a 95% statistical certainty that global warming had stopped.

I don’t know if that was actually what Jones said, but if he did he was mistaken. You can’t specify a number of year required to establish a statistically significant result. It will depend on the data.

• dcpetterson
because this nest of replies is rather overlong, I’ve replied and started anew way down below

• Bellman says:
I don’t know if that was actually what Jones said, but if he did he was mistaken.
I know that’s exactly what Phil Jones said, verbatim. I’ve been following the corruption exposed in the Climategate emails since they were made public. That’s why I was able to quote him from memory.
You may be right about Joners’ inability WRT statistics. He’s about as up to speed there as Michael Mann.
(At this time I’m joining the much shorter thread below.)

• richardscourtney says:

Bellman:

Instead of assuming I’m obfuscating, why not assume I’m really stupid and that I genuinely don’t understand the point you are making?

I was trying to be kind.
And you say

I think I get what you are saying here. You are defining “desired result” in moral terms. You are saying only pseudoscientists would stoop to looking for results they desire, whereas Monckton is an honourable man, so any result he obtains cannot be the result of a fallacy.
The trouble is that statistics doesn’t care about morality. If it’s fallacious for someone to choose endpoints to get a result you don’t like, it’s just as fallacious to do the same thing to get a result you do like.

Morality is not relevant. The issue is ETHICS.
Scientific conduct consists of research to expand knowledge.
Proper scientific conduct forbids misusing data to promote an idea.

If you had read what I wrote then you would have known that I explained to you

The “desired result” is the result the researcher hopes to obtain.
(i.e. The pseudoscientist uses the data to generate an answer which promotes an idea: i.e. the ‘analyst’ desires to promote an idea).
The calculated result is the result the data set provides.
(i.e. The researcher obtains the answer from the data which adds to knowledge: i.e. the analyst desires to reduce ignorance).

And I again repeat, that if you don’t understand what is meant by a “pseudoscientist uses the data to generate an answer which promotes an idea” then please read this example .
I repeat, it would be good if you were to read answers I provide to you and to discuss them instead of repeating yourself ad nauseam .
Richard
PS I do know that trying to discuss ethics with a warmunist is like trying to discuss the colour green with someone who has always been blind.

• Richard Barraclough says:

It’s fun watching this discussion of whether the end-points for the “Pause” are cherry-picked. It’s been repeated ad nauseam (almost literally) how the maths is done. I guess the main focus of the argument is whether that is a valid way of describing temperature trends.
It’s on the cards that by March, there will be only one possible start date (December 1997) for the negative trend. This will make accusations of cherry-picking even less defensible.
I think one of the commenters would feel at home in one of those less-than-democratic parliaments which one occasionally sees on TV, where instead of having a reasoned discussion, they have a punch-up. I guess this is the on-line equivalent.

• Harry Twinotter says:

Richard Barraclough.
A punch-up? Please someone video that, it will go viral.
In a sense the “discussion” is academic anyway because any trends (or lack of them) would not be statistically significant to 2-sigma anyway.
For the record, searching for a trend you like IS cherry-picking. But the nay sayers will always argue against science no matter how many times it is explained to them.

• richardscourtney says:

Harry Twinotter
You say

For the record, searching for a trend you like IS cherry-picking. But the nay sayers will always argue against science no matter how many times it is explained to them.

For the record, I agree with you that the “nay sayers” of the IPCC, the self-styled Team, and their supporters do cherry pick their claims of rises in global temperature since ~1880, and they “will always argue against science”.
Richard

• Bellman says:

richardscourtney:

If you had read what I wrote then you would have known that I explained to you

The “desired result” is the result the researcher hopes to obtain.
(i.e. The pseudoscientist uses the data to generate an answer which promotes an idea: i.e. the ‘analyst’ desires to promote an idea).
The calculated result is the result the data set provides.
(i.e. The researcher obtains the answer from the data which adds to knowledge: i.e. the analyst desires to reduce ignorance).

You are probably correct to say this discussion will just keep repeating, but before we put it to sleep I’ll try another tack.
With reference to the two statements quoted above, could you explain exactly what statistical approach you would take to allow us to see for a given claim whether it is the result of trying to obtain the “desired result”, or a “calculated result”? By a statistical approach I mean something that could be used objectively, without knowing if you agreed with the result or not.

• richardscourtney says:

Bellman:
You say to me

With reference to the two statements quoted above, could you explain exactly what statistical approach you would take to allow us to see for a given claim whether it is the result of trying to obtain the “desired result”, or a “calculated result”? By a statistical approach I mean something that could be used objectively, without knowing if you agreed with the result or not.

The pertinent “given claim” in this thread is an analysis to address the question;
How long has there been a period of sub-zero trend in the data until now?
And I have repeatedly explained exactly what statistical approach you would take to allow us to see for that claim whether it is the result of trying to obtain the “desired result”, or a “calculated result”.
The required “statistical approach” is the method adopted by Viscount Monckton.
As agnostic2015 also explained to you here where he wrote

@Bellman and Dcpattersen,
Guys, it’s really not that complicated. In order to AVOID the end point fallacy or accusations of cherry picking, what Monckton has done is ask “how far back can you go before you get a non zero trend?” – as R Courtnay has pointed out.
So you take the most recent data (not cherry picking since it is implied in the question) and look BACK through time. Calculating a trend is insensitive to the direction you are calculating…data either goes up or down….we just want to know if there is any kind of trend.
As a consequence, the length of time of no trend may vary depending on the variability of the new data as it comes in. Some times the length shortens but in general it has lengthened.
It is simply a way of illustrating a point that despite unprecedented emissions there has been no corresponding increase in temperatures, and doing it in a way that is logically sound, and objective, since the question obviates the need to choose dates.
If you wanted to be critical you could say “yeah but period also covers the 1998 anomalous El Niño which is going to skew results”, but then you would have to say the same thing about the following La Niña.
Moncktons approach is an exceedingly good one because it absolutely avoids the need to choose end points.

If the end points cannot be chosen by the analyst then the analyst cannot choose end points to obtain a desired result.
This has been told to you repeatedly.
Richard

64. Tom Dayton says:

Empirical demonstration that adjusted historic temperature station measurements are correct, because they match the pristine reference network: Evaluating the Impact of Historical Climate Network Homogenization Using the Climate Reference Network, 2016, Hausfather, Cowtan, Menne, and Williams. http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/background.html

• Bartemis says:

“Empirical demonstration that adjusted historic temperature station measurements are correct…”
This is not a scientific statement. It is a statement of absolute certainty, in the face of manipulations which considerably expand the uncertainty.

65. ECB says:

“Empirical demonstration that adjusted historic temperature station measurements are correct, because they match the pristine reference network”
No, nothing can be proved using only a couple of decades of data. The title is misleading by any standard, except of course for the standard of ‘climate science”.
Anthony Watts on the other hand, takes a much longer look and finds that there are major discrepancies between “pristine” and “adjusted”.

66. ren says:
• bit chilly says:

cool 😉

67. There is no pause.
A “pause” implies what was happening BEFORE the “pause” , will continue happening AFTER the “pause”.
No one knows the future climate trend (so the future climate should not be implied by using the word “pause” )
There was global warming from 1976 to 1998 before the “pause”.
There appears to have been a flat trend between the El Nino peaks in 1998 and 2015/2016.
If global warming resumes after the 2015/2016 EL Nino peak, only then would it be correct to call the flat trend a “pause” in a global warming trend that started in the 1800s.
If the 2015/2016 El Nino peak does NOT exceed the 1998 El Nino peak, then it would correct to wonder if the 1850 Modern Warming had ended in 1998.
A warming trend MUST have new average temperature peaks, just like a stock bull market must reach new peaks. If we go several decades without a new peak, it’s possible the warming trend has ended.
It’s possible the 1850 Modern Warming will continue for hundreds of years after the 2015/ 2016 El Nino peak … or perhaps it ended in 1998.
No one knows.
The correct answer to many climate science questions is “no one knows”.
A logical interpretation of the data between the 1998 and 2015/2016 El Nino peaks is that CO2 increased a lot, but the average temperature barely changed — making the “CO2 is the Climate Controller” theory (since 1975) look even more foolish.

• If you have a series of noisy data that randomly goes up and down, you are likely to occasionally get new record highs and new record lows. If at some point you stop getting both record highs and record lows, that means the variability is becoming increasingly restricted, and the noisy dataset has revealed its absolute limits. If you stop getting record highs but still get some record lows, that means your long-term trend is downward, and there may not be a lower limit to its variability. If you stop getting record lows but still get some record highs, that means your long-term trend is upward, and there may be no upward limit.
In the last 130 years, the last time we got a record low annual temperature was more than 100 years ago. We have had several dozen years with record high average temperature since then.
Further, the annual averages are drifting increasingly far away from the record lows that were set in the first 30 years. In fact, we have not had a single month in which the global average temperature was at or below the 20th century average since some time in the 1980s.
This implies there is a very strong long-term upward trend in global temperatures.

• “very strong upward trend in global temperatures” ???
You’re a lunatic if you believe that.
The VERY rough estimates are a mere + 1 degree C. since 1880.
I doubt if the starting point had accuracy better than +/- 1 degree C.
It is also well known that 1800s thermometers tended to read low.
So if you trust the data, and I don’t, we are somewhere between no change and +2 degrees C. warmer than 1880.
So what?
Earth’s climate is ALWAYS changing.
It’s GREAT news we are slightly warmer — I hope for more warming in the future.
1300 to 1800 were too cool.
CO2 levels were too low for healthy plant growth in the 1700s (they still are)
It’s GREAT news that CO2 levels have increased.
I hope for more CO2 in the air for even faster plant growth.
The claim that CO2 is the “climate controller” has been nonsense for all 4.5 billion years of climate history.
The demonization of CO2 by leftists is a not very well disguised strategy to implement BIG GOVERNMENT socialism — I call it “Save the Earth Socialism” — it has nothing to do with real science.
I’m still waiting for the apology for demonizing DDT in the 1960s leading to millions of unnecessary deaths from malaria in the following decades.
But environmentalists never care about the damage they do to our planet, and the people who live on it, by launching one false environmental boogeyman ( false crises used to gain power and government grants ) after another.
Only a fool would demonize an airborne plant food.
Only a fool would demonize CO2 when the climate in 2015 is better than it has ever been in the past 500 to 1000 years, for both people and animals and plants.

• Richard Greene,

So if you trust the data, and I don’t, we are somewhere between no change and +2 degrees C. warmer than 1880.
So what?

Very bad things happen at a 2 degrees C global temperature rise.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/s/e/2degrees-map.pdf
http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/2c.html
http://www.livescience.com/17340-agu-climate-sensitivity-nasa-hansen.html
And particularly:
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_final.pdf
I understand you are likely to dismiss these studies as being unreliable, because they are not from people you like and trust. Confirmation bias is not uncommon. I challenge you to read and consider the studies anyway.

• Bartemis says:

“Very bad things happen at a 2 degrees C global temperature rise.”
A counterfactual statement of the type used to make children behave, lest the bogey man come for them. This is sheer scare-mongering.

• Bartemis.

A counterfactual statement of the type used to make children behave, lest the bogey man come for them. This is sheer scare-mongering.

You are not making a rational argument. You are free to respond to the information in the links I provided, rather than simply provide an unsupported assertion embedded within an unprovoked ad hominem. I assume you can do better.

• Bartemis says:

None of these scare stories show the least sign of coming true. Major storms show no trend. Droughts globally are actually declining in severity. Sea level is not accelerating. It’s tales of monsters under the bed to scare children. It’s the shaman warning the people the gods are angry. It’s counterfactual nonsense.
I’m really sick to my teeth of it.

• Bartemis,
You made some assertions with no evidence to back them up. None of your assertions are true. I invite you to present some evidence to support these assertions.
blockquote> Major storms show no trend.
This assertion is untrue. Please examine this site. We can also mention the superstorms Sandy and Katrina and the immense storm that just dumped 3 feet of snow on some places on the US east coast. 2015 saw record-breaking storms in the Pacific (for the first time ever, there were three typhoons at once in the Pacific). 2015 set a record for the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes and typhoons. 2015’s Hurricane Patricia was the strongest storm ever to hit Mexico.

Droughts globally are actually declining in severity.

This is also false. There have recently been historically large droughts in the western US, Australia, and the Middle East, among other places. They are becoming more severe and longer lasting.

Sea level is not accelerating.

Yes, it is.
And of course, storms, droughts, and sea level were not the only factors in the links I provided. There are also matters of changing growing seasons, melting glaciers (which affect access to fresh water), areas where various plants and animals can live, extinction of many species of ocean life (affecting fishing industries), and so on.
You have furnished no information which can be checked, only a handful of assertions which are easily shown to be false. I invite you to back up some of your assertions if you can.

• dcpetterson,
You are sounding increasingly foolish:
…your long-term trend is upward, and there may be no upward limit.
“No upward limit”? …heh
The recent warming trend has happened repeatedly, before industrial CO2 emissions could have made any difference:
And your climate propaganda links are wasted here. This is the internet’s Best Science site, so please post that anti-science nonsense where it belongs. Hotwhopper, or pseudo-skeptical pseudo-science come to mind.
Millions of years ago the planet was up to 10º warmer than now, without any problem; during those warm spells the biosphere exploded with life and diversity. CO2 levels were up to fifteen times higher than now, without ever triggering runaway global warming — or any global warming, for that matter.
Even during the past few hundred thousand years the planet’s temperature was warmer than now. Those were good times for the biosphere. But most of the time it was far colder:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/climate-past.png
The alarmist crowd has been so wrong so often that rational folks no longer pay attention to their ravings. Skeptics comment just to make sure new readers don’t see alarmist nonsense, without being exposed to the other side — the rational side — of the debate. Then readers can make up their own minds.
And you know what? Plenty of alarmed folks have changed into skeptics of the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare. But I can’t recall a single case of a skeptic deciding that climate alarmism is credible.

• @dbstealey
First, there is no need to be insulting or impolite. Please do not refer to climate science as “climate propaganda”. Schoolyard taunting tends to make you look desperate, and tends to make your points less convincing. I have been unflaggingly polite, and I would appreciate the same in return.
Thank you for those graphs. I appreciate you taking the time to present them.

The recent warming trend has happened repeatedly, before industrial CO2 emissions could have made any difference:

In the first one, where you depict what you say is a “repeating” temperature increase, note that the last one — the one we are in now — extends higher than any of the others. Also, that temperatures are still increasing. Unless you can explain what caused each of these increases, you have merely presented observations, but you haven’t proved or disproved anything.
There was quite a bit of coal burning going on in the nineteenth century, and coal is still a primary cause of carbon emissions. So I’m not sure why you say “industrial CO2 emissions could have made any difference:” in those earlier instances.

Millions of years ago the planet was up to 10º warmer than now, without any problem; during those warm spells the biosphere exploded with life and diversity. CO2 levels were up to fifteen times higher than now, without ever triggering runaway global warming — or any global warming, for that matter.

Yes, there was a great diversity of life millions of years ago. Humans were not around however, and neither was human civilization. In fact, none the plants and animals we rely on today existed then in their current form. They all evolved during conditions very different from what was “millions of years ago.” They need time to adapt if the world were to warm again, and it is now warming much too fast to allow evolutionary adaptation. Rising temperatures now would not destroy life on Earth, but that would destroy human civilization, which is something I care about.
You say, “… the planet was up to 10º warmer than now… CO2 levels were up to fifteen times higher than now”. Do you not see the connection between those two facts? Rising CO2 levels have played a significant role in early every significant temperature increase in Earth’s history.
You mention that the Earth has been both warmer and colder in the past. That is true, and climatologists are aware of what caused those fluctuations. The fact of previous fluctuations does not negate the current one, nor do previous fluctuations negate what climate scientists know of the causes for the current one. If you wish to discuss the causes, we can do so.
Climatologists recognize that we should now be in a global cooling phase, moving toward another glacial epoch. The climate would be getting colder now — if it were not for increased greenhouse gasses overwhelming that trend, and warming the planet instead.
Thanks again for the conversation.

• dcpetterson says:
Please do not refer to climate science as “climate propaganda”.
Why not? That’s exactly what it is when people can get away with posting total propaganda like this:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
^THAT^ is climate propaganda.
Next:
…note that the last one — the one we are in now — extends higher than any of the others. Also, that temperatures are still increasing.
What else would you expect, when the planet is recovering from the Little Ice Age (LIA); one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,000+ year long Holocene? Since even the IPCC can’t separate natural variability in global temperatures (T) from the assumed AGW, all they — or you — are doing is speculating. Until you can produce a verifiable, testable, empirical and replicable measurement quantifying the fraction of AGW out of total global warming, all you are doing is making data-free assertions.
Next:
Unless you can explain what caused each of these increases…
Umm-m… no. You don’t understand: skeptics of a conjecture or hypothesis have nothing to prove. You are making the claim, therefore you are the one who needs to explain it. The onus is entirely on those making the ‘dangerous AGW’ conjecture to provide proof, or at least strong, convincing evidence.
But your side has completely failed. Despite your multi-million dollar GCMs, not one of you was able to predict the most significant event of the past century: the fact that global warming stopped. (I understand; the new Narrative is to lie about it now, and claim that global warming is chugging along as always. Lies are all the alarmist contingent has, because they certainly lack any convincing evidence.)
Next:
There was quite a bit of coal burning going on in the nineteenth century, and coal is still a primary cause of carbon emissions.
Now you’re just winging it. A very few countries that were beginning to industrialize had started using coal, but there’s no comparison to current use. But let’s say you’re right, and that CO2 was rising fast in the middle of the past century. Global temperatures should have been going up. But they weren’t.
Next:
Rising temperatures now would not destroy life on Earth, but that would destroy human civilization…
If it weren’t for assertions, you wouldn’t have much to say. That whole paragraph is only your personal opinion, nothing more.
Next:
If you wish to discuss the causes, we can do so.
That’s your job. You’re making the conjecture, you need to explain it convincingly. But I have yet to see convincing evidence showing that a rise in CO2 is the cause of rising global T.
finally, some extra-preposterous nonsense:
The climate would be getting colder now — if it were not for increased greenhouse gasses overwhelming that trend, and warming the planet instead.
If I may deconstruct…
…Thank you:
What you’re saying is that the rise in human-emitted CO2 — which is only around 3% of the total emitted from all sources — is exactly balancing the expected rise in global T. It balances so perfectly, in fact, that as global human emission continue to rise year-over-year, temperatures are being kept flat.
Does that pass the smell test with you? Because it reeks of nonsense to me. You’re saying that global emissions from the U.S., the EU, China, Russia, India, and a hundred smaller countries, is increasing at exactly the right amount to keep the planet from either warming, or cooling. Is that what you believe? Sounds like religious dogma to me.

• Incidentally, dbstealey, both of the graphs above end too soon and do not show enough.
The first one ends in 2009, and global temperatures have increased rather sharply since then. If the intent was to claim temperatures were about to spike and head back down c. 2009, that certainly did not happen.
The second one can be augmented by showing something of the cause for the fluctuations. I will try to include an informative image here if I can (I’m not sure how, so if I fail, a link to the image is here and an article about it is available here.) This image includes CO2 levels. You can see CO2 level is strongly correlated with temperature, CO2 levels are now at historically high levels. We have known for over a hundred years that CO2 is opaque to infrared radiation, and satellite readings show the Earth is retaining far more heat than it absorbs from the sun.

• Geez, I’m typing too fast. I said, “satellite readings show the Earth is retaining far more heat than it absorbs from the sun.” I mean to say, “satellite readings show the Earth is retaining far more heat than it is releasing into space.” It is absorbing more heat from the sun than it radiates in the form of infrared light. This excess heat is increasing the temperature of the climate as a whole.

• Gloateus Maximus says:

dcpetterson
February 7, 2016 at 3:41 pm
What exactly was so bad about the Holocene Climatic Optimum (c. 8000 to 5000 years ago), which was about two degrees C warmer than now, with little or no summer ice in the Arctic Ocean and a green Sahara?

• I apologize, I messed up the formatting on that last reply. I think most of the links work, except this one which documents sea level rise.

• richardscourtney says:

dcpetterson:
You said

Very bad things happen at a 2 degrees C global temperature rise.

That is absolute nonsense!
It seems you don’t know the difference between temperature and temperature anomaly.
Global temperature rises by 3.8°C (i.e. nearly double 2 degrees C) from January to June each year and nobody notices.
Also,
Global temperature falls by 3.8°C (i.e. nearly double 2 degrees C) from June to January each year and nobody notices.
If you want to know how and why read this.
Simply, water is a better heat-sink than land and there is a greater proportion lof water in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) than the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Therefore, SH winters are warmer than NH winters and SH summers are cooler than NH summers. But it is summer in the SH when it is winter in the NH and vice versa. Global temperature is the average of SH and NH temperatures.
Richard

• The trendline doesn’t look flat, does it? It has an actual upward slope.
The flat trend appears only when you cherry-pick the proper month to start from, Any other starting point does not provide the desired result. That is the definition of “cherry picking”.

• Bartemis says:

Utterly negligible. And way, way less than projected by the modelers. The AGW hypothesis is busted. The climate systems of the Earth are more complicated than they thought, or hoped.

• ren says:

About 0.1 degree per 20 years.

• ren says:

We can now expect La Nina and the trend is still lower.

• Utterly negligible.

For this particular cherry-picked subset of the data, yes.
The point is, the slope is not zero, as Monckton claims.
There is no “pause”.

• Bartemis says:

Utterly negligible as in statistically indistinguishable from zero.
There are no monsters under the bed. Go back to sleep.

• Let’s use Dr. Phil Jones’ starting date:
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_8850-may-01-04-45.gif
Jones designated the 1997-98 year as the starting year to determine if global warming has stopped. He is your guy, dcpetterson, so go argue with him if you don’t like it.
And Bartemis is right, any changes are negligible. They are wiggles in the noise. Temperatures over the past century and a half have been flatter than any comparable period in the geologic record:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
You’re trying to manufacture a false alarm. Stop it, it’s dishonest. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything observed now has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree.

• The starting year in Jones’s interview was 1995, why don’t you use that?

• “Jones designated the 1997-98 year as the starting year to determine if global warming has stopped.”
He was talking about HADCRUT. RSS is much more variable. And yes, he said 1995, not 1997-8.

68. John Finn says:

The ocean warming, if ARGO is right, is equivalent to just 0.02 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.2 Cº century–1.

It doesn’t sound a lot but if this is an average down to a depth of 1900 metres it’s not trivial. Using the 0.023 deg per decade I get a forcing of 0.58 w/m2 which supports the TOA energy imbalance figure of 0.6 w/m2

• John Finn

The ocean warming, if ARGO is right, is equivalent to just 0.02 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.2 Cº per century.

It doesn’t sound a lot but if this is an average down to a depth of 1900 metres it’s not trivial.

Please tell us why an air temperature rise of 0.2 degrees per century, or a global average ocean water temperature increase of 0.2 degrees is significant, that is “not trivial”. The global air temperature anomaly CANNOT rise any warmer than the global average sea water anomaly! That more heat energy is contained with a 0.2 degree warmer ocean sets an absolute limit on how far the atmosphere can heat up. Which is the temperature as the water heated up, in your simplified flat-earth diskworld of average global temperatures and uniform water conditions.

• John Finn says:

You make a valid point. However, there is an argument that, over the past decade or so, more energy has gone into heating the oceans rather than the atmosphere. If that is true then presumably the reverse can also happen which would result in the atmosphere warming at considerably more than 0.023 degrees per decade.
At the end of the day, the ARGO data supports an imbalance. We can’t necessarily rely on the fact that all excess energy will end up in the deep ocean.

• Bartemis says:

But, with an upper limit in how far it can rise.

• John Finn asserts:
However, there is an argument that, over the past decade or so, more energy has gone into heating the oceans rather than the atmosphere.
Show us the heat hiding in the oceans. Post verifiable data-based evidence.

69. Rob says:

No surprises with the seasonal “Super” El Niño effects. It’s weakening now. Look for La Niña by Fall 2016…Global Cooling…and a return of Hurricanes to their traditional tracks
through the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.

• Toneb says:

Rob:
So you are implying there way “global cooling” between ’98 and ’14?
When in fact the la ninjas predominated and during which time 15 of the 16 hottest years on instrumental record have occurred.
You are correct though in a way.
The Earth SHOULD have cooled a little in that time ….. we’re it not for CO2 forcing.

70. peyelut says:

“No honest analysis of any global temperature data set shows an 18 year pause in global warming.”
No honest analysis of global temperature data says anything is going on now that HASN’T HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
Fixed it for ya.

71. James at 48 says:

The 2015-16 El Nino was a short sharp spike. By my reckoning SST peaked in November. NOAA prog’s ENSO neutral by mid year, La Nina prior to year end.

72. The central claim of the climate alarmist contingent is being falsified by the only Authority that matters: the real world.
The alarmist crowd was flat wrong. And ‘dcpetterson’ is making false statements when he says that extreme weather events are increasing. They’re not. And deaths from extreme weather are a good proxy:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/extreme_wx_deaths.png
Hurricanes show no rising trend, in either intensity or number:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/screenhunter_212-may-31-04-07.gif
The question I have is: ‘dcpetterson, where have you been getting your misinformation from? Certainly not from this ‘Best Science’ site. Probably from the ‘skeptical’science blog, amirite?
That’s just a climate propaganda blog. Stick around here for a while, you might learn something.

• Bartemis says:

Thanks, db. I considered hunting down all that data to show him, but suffered an extreme attack of ennui. It gets tiresome rebutting these talking points from the automatons. Which is not to say it does not need to be done, continuously and repeatedly.

• dbstealey February 8, 2016 at 10:32 am
The alarmist crowd was flat wrong. And ‘dcpetterson’ is making false statements when he says that extreme weather events are increasing. They’re not.
dbstealey February 8, 2016 at 1:46 pm
So, Phil., you prefer to believe that NOAA propaganda, over other NOAA tornado data that contradicts it in the charts I posted? And over peer reviewed studies of extreme weather events? And over Dr. Ryan Maue’s meticulous hurricane data?

The NOAA data showed ‘extreme weather events’ to be increasing, you cherry picked some data referring to particular types of events. In aggregate the NOAA graph shows ‘extreme weather events’ to be increasing for the US at least.

• Bartemis says:

So basically, no actual trend, just a couple of El Nino years that stick out. And, this after marked expansion of human habitats into disaster prone areas.
More stories to frighten children. Meh.

• You must be looking at the wrong graph, the one I posted has a statistically significant increasing trend.

• Bartemis says:

Mmmm… so the picture extends to the right with the little slider dealy. So, basically, a sudden step up in a period of no warming. What does this prove? That we better hope for more warming soon?
If you look through all the categories, the only one that actually shows any particular upward movement is the one labeled “severe storms”. And, the time at which it shows an uptick is 2008. Hmmm…. What could have happened in 2008 to cause the losses attributed to “severe storm” to pile up? What could it be…

73. So, Phil., you prefer to believe that NOAA propaganda, over other NOAA tornado data that contradicts it in the charts I posted? And over peer reviewed studies of extreme weather events? And over Dr. Ryan Maue’s meticulous hurricane data?
None of the scary, alarming predictions made by the climate alarmist contingent have ever come true. Every alarming prediction was wrong. And now it appears that NOAA is publishing false propaganda. It’s almost as if they have an agenda…
The central hypothesis of the alarmist contingent is that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe (I know, now it’s “climate change”).
The scary predictions didn’t happen. They were wrong, all of them. The climate alarmist side has been consistently, completely wrong in its alarming predictions.
In science, when your predictions fail you’re supposed to reject your hypothesis, try to figure out why it failed, and then re-formulate a new hypothesis in an effort to find correct answers.
But that’s in regular science. The kind of science that sent men to the moon. In Climate Change Science™ (CCS), things don’t work like that. In CCS™ you dig in your heels, and refuse to ever admit you could have been wrong. You put together fancy but false and misleading charts to convince the public that climate doom is right around the corner.
And then you enlist anonymous folks to take potshots from the peanut gallery on skeptic sites that allow and encourage views from all sides of the debate — while never criticizing all the alarmist blogs for censoring posts they don’t agree with.
If your side actually honestly believed what you say, that wouldn’t be necessary. Your bought and paid for scientists would still be willing to debate publicly, if they believed what they were telling the public.
That would be the case, if the alarmist crew was honest. Wouldn’t it?

• Warren Latham says:

Absolutely bloody spot on !

74. Bill Everett says:

The temperature graphs published by NOAA show a definite leveling of temperature starting about 2002. This start followed the pattern of the two previously recorded pauses which began in about 1880 and 1940. Both lasted about thirty years. Therefore, it is premature to say that the current pause has ended just because a particular climate event, such as the current El Nino, temporarily distorts the running average temperature. The current pause should continue until about 2032 if past recorded temperature history is any guide.

75. jim says:

Mr Monckton,
My warmist friend doesn’t believe in the pause, and actually claims that global warming has accelerated in recent years, and is now faster than it was in the 20th century. She calls it a surge! I tried to use your statistical method to disprove that nonsense, but instead came to the conclusion that warming has indeed been “surging” since December 2006! Let me explain what I did, and maybe you can explain what I did wrong…
The average rate of warming in RSS monthly data in the 20th century (1979 to Dec 1999 – a period that includes the monster El Nino in 1998) was 0.145 deg. / decade. Agreed?
So, using your method of testing climate trends, I calculated the longest period up to the current month for which the linear trend is greater than 0.145 deg/decade (the 20th century reference). As it turns out, that period starts in December 2006. So using your method of defining climate periods, it seems my warmist friend is right – even RSS data show that for the past 9 years the Earth has been warming at a faster rate than it did in the 20th century! How can the second half of the 18 year pause be a 9 year surge?

• The average rate of warming in RSS monthly data in the 20th century (1979 to Dec 1999 – a period that includes the monster El Nino in 1998) was 0.145 deg. / decade. Agreed?
How can the second half of the 18 year pause be a 9 year surge?

Trends of under 10 years when the final 4 months are records or near records for their respective months due to a very strong El Nino can be very distorting. Here is the slope for December 2006 to September 2015:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Dec 2006 to Sep 2015
Rate: 0.882°C/Century;
CI from -2.043 to 3.807;
t-statistic 0.591;
Temp range 0.192°C to 0.269°C
The 0.882/century is not at all alarming. But December 2006 to January 2016 gives a totally different picture as follows:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Dec 2006 to Jan 2016
Rate: 1.461°C/Century;
CI from -1.650 to 4.572;
t-statistic 0.920;
Temp range 0.174°C to 0.307°C
Note this:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jul 2009 to Jan 2016
Rate: -0.079°C/Century;
CI from -5.180 to 5.021;
t-statistic -0.030;
Temp range 0.280°C to 0.274°C
The slope is even negative from July 2009 to January 2016!

• jim says:

Werner,
Even if we exclude the last 4 months of data, Monckton’s method would still give a surge starting in May 2007. So the final 8+ years of his pause would be a surge. When a “statistical” method leads to such logical absurdities, or is so sensitive to start/end values, surely you have to question the method?

• “Trends of under 10 years when the final 4 months are records or near records for their respective months due to a very strong El Nino can be very distorting.”
The same is true when the period starts with a big El Nino. And the distortion doesn’t fade to zero after ten years. Basically, the Pause will end because the 1997-2016 period has been bookended with peaks. If you split near the middle, one half will be downtrend and one uptrend.

• Nick,
Of course many experts believe that for climate time-series T’s, ten years is not enough to consider trending, and that’s with straight linear trends when it is not known if the underlying long-term trend should be straight or curvilinear.
My comment below to dcpetterson is also relevant.
EXCEL tells me that the average anomaly for 1998 is 0.55 C
Whereas for 1997 to 2000 (inclusive of the peak) it is only 0.21 C
Also, for 2010 alone it is 0.47 C
Whereas 2008 thru 2012 inclusive it is 0.21 C
So, what is all the excitement about over the peaks?
The contrast between the surface T and RSS T for 2010 is interesting don’t you think?

• Jim,
It is generally agreed that a “surge” of eight or ten years in climate T data is statistically meaningless in terms of trend (whilst in itself perhaps having some interest in a particular context).
Please see the following 2011 paper in GRL by seventeen authors:
Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale
B. D. Santer, C. Mears, C. Doutriaux, P. Caldwell, P. J. Gleckler, T. M. L. Wigley, S. Solomon, N. P. Gillett, D. Ivanova, T. R. Karl, J. R. Lanzante, G. A. Meehl, P. A. Stott, K. E. Taylor, P. W. Thorne, M. F. Wehner, F. J. Wentz
They conclude that at least seventeen years are required for trend. Note that one of the authors is none other than Tom Karl director of NCDC at NOAA and father of the recent controversial SST adjustments in Gistemp.
Ben Santer, Tom Wigley and Susan Solomon are also famously influential.

• Richard Barraclough says:

Werner,
I think he was joking.
It was just a tongue-in-cheek illustration of the spurious logic used to look for the Pause. You can use the same technique to look for rapidly rising temperatures

• I think he was joking.

However another reader may think that it was an excellent question and may be wondering what the response may be.

• jim says:

Werner and bobfj,
I know there is no surge. I know short term variability from ENSO etc make trends estimated from snippets of data meaningless. That was point. You can’t learn anything about trends by cherry picking start times, which is what Monckton does. His method is rubbish.
There are perfectly good methods for objectively detecting changes in trends in time series. They are called changepoint models. They use all of the available data to test whether and when trends have changed. Many people (including me) have applied them to climate data. Those methods find zero evidence of a recent “pause” in any annual global temperature series (surface, satellite or balloon). You might find a slowdown in RSS monthly data starting around 2003 using a changepoint model, but only if you ignore autocorrelation. In fact, the only way to find a genuine trend change in RSS data is to subtract the corresponding balloon data from it.
graph is from tamino: (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/exogenous-redux/)

• Jim,
With your latest wisdom, starting with:
“I know there is no surge. I know short term variability from ENSO etc make trends estimated from snippets of data meaningless. That was point. You can’t learn anything about trends by cherry picking start times, which is what Monckton does. His method is rubbish.”
“I tried to use your [C. Monckton] statistical method to disprove that nonsense, but instead came to the conclusion that warming has indeed been “surging” since December 2006! Let me explain what I did, and maybe you can explain what I did wrong…”
“Even if we exclude the last 4 months of data, Monckton’s method would still give a surge starting in May 2007. So the final 8+ years of his pause would be a surge. When a “statistical” method leads to such logical absurdities, or is so sensitive to start/end values, surely you have to question the method?”
Putting aside a temptation to report you for trolling (in the internet definition) it occurs to me that perhaps naively you may not have properly read or understood the lead article, for you did write:
“So, using your [C. Monckton] method of testing climate trends, I calculated the longest period up to the current month for which the linear trend is greater than 0.145 deg/decade (the 20th century reference). As it turns out, that period starts in December 2006. So using your method of defining climate periods, it seems my warmist friend is right – even RSS data show that for the past 9 years the Earth has been warming at a faster rate than it did in the 20th century! How can the second half of the 18 year pause be a 9 year surge?”
Be advised that the start value of the zero change line-plot in the lead article is end of January 2015 backwards to a point when zero net-trend ends with a meaningful span of over eighteen years. Any intervening peaks or valleys are not relevant to the net result. Your statement immediately above is not relevant to the article and if you carefully read it, you will find:
“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.”
BTW my full name is Bob Fernley-Jones (Mechanical engineer retired). Do you have a name etcetera?

• Jim says:

Bob, if the definition of troll is someone making a serious criticism of a blog post by asking a hypothetical, then guilty as charged. I did not mean to deceive, I thought it would be obvious that I was criticising Moncktons methods, not asking a genuine question about a surge.
I know exactly how Monckton calculates his pause- I can post an R script to replicate it if you like. I used the exact method to calculate a surge, to show that his cherry picking can achieve any desired result. I started at jan 2016 too, and worked backwards to find the longest period with ‘net trend’ greater than 0.0145. It’s cherry picking whether you start at the end and work back, or start at the beginning at work forward. What makes it cherry picking is throwing out the data before the earliest date (whether you call that the start or end). When you ignore earlier data you inevitably get the intercept (start value) wrong, which in turn makes your trend estimate wrong. Ask Monckton, or yourself, how and when temps got to the value at which they paused? Did they magically and permanently jump up 0.2 deg the day before the pause started (see my comment to Janice earlier in comments- I can’t repost graphs now)? A pause starting 1997/8 simply cannot be supported by any objective analysis of the full data. That is why the start time of Moncktons cherry pause keeps getting later, and why it will vanish completely next month.

• That is why the start time of Moncktons cherry pause keeps getting later

It is not a cherry pause. Suppose a reporter wanted to say the longest time in the past when oil was as low as today. He would come up with X years and Y months. Is that a cherry pick? No way! Now suppose oil drops further next month and the time when it was at the new low is 4 months earlier and this is reported as such. This is also not a cherry pick. Now should the price go up, the new time may be 5 months later when the oil was that low. Again, this is not a cherry pick. You are just factually reporting how long ago the oil price was as low as today.

• Jim,
I see you even obfuscate over the internet definition of the word ‘troll’!
Here it is per MS Encarta online dictionary:
7. fool internet user into responding: online intransitive verb to lure other Internet users into sending responses to carefully designed incorrect statements
• You claimed to find a surge from December 2006 and secondly from May 2007.
• You then claimed “I know there is no surge”
Christopher Monckton describes a linear trend of zero of over 18 years, so your analysis is irrelevant because there are ups and downs throughout the time-series.
• You obfuscate on methodology when a simple solution is to download the RSS data into a spreadsheet and do an OLS trend for the period found by Christopher Monckton. (Regardless of how he got there)
You might have noted my close-by comment that NOAA guru Tom Karl and sixteen other authors have concluded 17 years is enough to determine a meaningful trend.

• jim says:

a simple solution is to download the RSS data into a spreadsheet and do an OLS trend for the period found by Christopher Monckton.
No. A simple solution is download RSS data and test whether there is any evidence of a change in trend at Monckton’s pause date. This is Monckton’s view RSS:
http://www.jimstonefly.yolasite.com/resources/images/moncktons-view_24777862841_o.png
Do you really think there was an instantaneous and permanent 0.2 degree jump in atmospheric temps the day before the pause started?
This is what you get when you allow for a continuous change in trend at Monckton’s pause date:
http://www.jimstonefly.yolasite.com/resources/images/image1.png
Warming didn’t stop when Monckton says it did.
And this is what you get when you use a proper change-point model to objectively test whether and when there have been any changes in trend:
http://www.jimstonefly.yolasite.com/resources/myview.png
Yes there is evidence of a slow down (not a stop) in warming, but it starts around 2003 – about the time when satellites diverge from balloons…
BTW Santer et al say you need at least 17 years. As the above shows, when you start near a monster El Nino, you’re gonna need more.

• Jim,
In your latest obfuscation, gleaned I guess from dogma at the ‘Skeptical Science’ or ‘Tamino’ websites, there was an attempt to post three images, but they do not open my end.
Beneath the first attempted image you wrote:
“Do you really think there was an instantaneous and permanent 0.2 degree jump in atmospheric temps the day before the pause started?”
From this I presume that you mean that the linear trends of the plateau and the warming period before it do not line up.
Unfortunately, it seems that you do not comprehend the significance of this. What is strongly indicated is that the true long term underlying trend is not a series of straight line trends but is curvilinear.
To illustrate that point, I’ve plotted HadCrut4 from 1850, courtesy of WoodForTrees together with three trend lines (OLS):
There is an underlying quasi-cyclic waveform of about 60+ years (times ~2 ½) versus a very, very poor fit to the full term linear trend. The two shorter trend lines are equivalent I think to what you were trying to say. (Unfortunately WFT does not provide polynomials)
It is a statement of fact that the RSS data for the recent 18,8 years shows an OLS trend of zero. In other words, there has been no net warming for longer than 17 years…. this is a fact. These are the actual data and not anything you can change by your statistical argument.
What this means is open to speculation but we are arguably on a developing plateau of notable similarity to those of around the 1870’s and 1940’s. Additionally, from past behaviour, 2017 and 2018 are likely to be cooler, which adds to the likelihood of a third full such oscillation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Repeating from above~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EXCEL tells me that the average [RSS] anomaly for 1998 is 0.55 C
Whereas for 1997 to 2000 (inclusive of the peak) it is only 0.21 C [Below full term average of 0.25 C]
Also, for 2010 alone it is 0.47 C
Whereas 2008 thru 2012 inclusive it is 0.21 C
So, what is all the excitement about over the peaks?

• jim says:

Bob,
Its a shame my images don’t show – Please try this link – which should show all 3 (I set up a wordpress site just for you!):
We are in complete agreement that the true trend may be curvilinear. That is exactly why you can’t cherry pick an interval (of any length) and give the OLS slope for it as evidence for either a pause or a surge. That is why it is certainly not a “fact” that RSS shows no warming for 18 years – you can only reach that conclusion if you ignore the data prior to the start of the period – thereby assuming that temps magically jumped to the value at which they “paused”. Whether you use a series of linear segments or a polynomial the fitted trend must – by definition – be a continuous function of time. And you must use proper statistical methods to avoid overfitting (i.e. not arbitrary curve fitting). This is not ‘dogma’ from SkS or tamino. This is basic statistics. I analysed the data myself to see what the data says. The data says warming did not stop 18 years ago.

• Jim,
If you cannot accept that the following statement in para 2 of the lead article is a statement of fact then you are in denial of truth.
“The RSS data still show no global warming for 18 years 8 months, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration over the period.”
Whatever statistical treatment you prefer, it does not alter those actual data values and I’m typing this very slowly in the futile hope that you might grasp it as so, beyond dogma.
What it is, is a strong indicator of a developing plateau on that 60-year quasi-cycle (which Bartemis mentions as one autoregressive process below) but of course some years are required before that can be confirmed as a third plateau since 1850. And, note that the article makes no attempt to forecast longer trends I guess because that is a different and speculative matter.
Thank you for the graphics, but I’m amused that it includes linear trends despite the powerful evidence of a waveform.
I was also entertained by your self-defeating argument of need for data before a particular period in order to determine the trend for that period. So where is this mandatory data before 1979 and by implication for after Jan 2016?
Look, don’t bother to reply, I’ve become bored with this and would ignore.

• jim says:

Bob,
Your precious “fact” will vanish into thin air next month, at which point I guess you can take comfort in quasi-cycles and magical instantaneous jumps, and any other mathturbation Monckton and co. throw your way.
I’ll stick with science.
goodbye

• Bartemis says:

It’s just an El Nino, Jim. Nothing to get excited about.

• jim says:

And you accuse others of cherry picking??
That result is not a cherry pick – its an objectively derived result using all the data. Look at my plot again (and try reading all of what I wrote).
https://quantitare.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/myview.png?w=660
I don’t go looking for a particular result and throw out data that doesn’t fit the desired outcome (why did you end you WFT tree graphs in 2014?). I use all of the data to fit a continous trend line, using an objective change-point function to identify any changes in trend. I don’t arbitrarily split the data into 2 groups and fit separate lines that don’t meet up. In your WFT plots, how do you explain the sudden jumps from end of the first trend line to the start of the second? Where did that heat from which your ‘cooling’ starts come from?
The apparent slow down RSS since 2003 is not a cooling, its a reduced rate of warming, and its probably an artefact of drift in satellite sensors (its not evident in balloon data), incomplete accounting for autocorrelation (its barely evident in annaul RSS data), or both. Or maybe its real, and the rate of warming since 2003 has been slightly reduced. Time will tell. Dodgy stats on cherry picked data will not.

• dbstealey,
Another way of looking at the RSS data is seen in the following WFT graphic with the trend from 1979 through to Jan 2016 added:
By definition, these are the OLS linear trends for those three nominated periods which may be useful in particular contexts.
Interestingly, by eyeball the WFT 37-year trend gives an end T of roughly 3.4 C, whereas Jim’s 37 year trend gives roughly 2.7 C, or substantially cooler.
Maybe we should recommend to the Oz CSIRO that the new climate policy emphasis shift to mitigation should include getting Jim to diminish warming with his methodology?
I don’t think Jim has named his software but maybe we could try other methodologies to hopefully reduce warming. I dunno, how about LOWESS (LOESS), or a second order polynomial…..or?
Whatever, the surface T records strongly show an underlying curvilinear long-term trend.

• Jim says:
This is not ‘dogma’ from SkS or tamino. This is basic statistics. I analysed the data myself to see what the data says. The data says warming did not stop 18 years ago.
May I deconstruct? Thank you:
Less than one year ago there were reams of proposed explanations by the alarmist crowd, including plenty of discussion of the “basic statistics” being used (and if you like I can post thirty or forty of their reasons for the so-called “pause”. Just ask).
All sides accepted the fact that global warming had been stopped for many years. The only quibbles were over how many years. Was it 18 years? Was it fifteen years? Or was it 22 years? Should we use RSS? Or UAH?
Scientists on the alarmist side were not claiming that global warming was continuing. The overwhelming ‘consensus’ agreed that global warming was in a “hiatus”. People were arguing about whether to call the fact that global warming had stopped a “pause”, or a “plateau”, or a “hiatus”, or a “peak”, etc. Even IPCC scientists were openly discussing “The Pause”.
Since, as you say, this is “basic statistics”, and since the same data was available then, those well educated folks had all the tools necessary to understand what was, and what was not, happening. And they all agreed that the (so-called) “pause” was in effect; global warming had stopped many years ago.
Then, practically overnight the Narrative turned on a dime. Now the new talking point is “global warming never stopped”. And, “satellite data is no good!”
That may fool the true believers at hotwhopper. But readers here aren’t the lemmings that hotwhopper or SkS caters to. We aren’t stupid, we see the agenda. So when you thump your chest and say, “I used the exact method to calculate a surge…” &etc., we can see that you’re just monkey-piling on the latest talking point:
The data says warming did not stop 18 years ago.
You’re not fooling the folks here. You’re just parroting the latest alarmist narrative. And you aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are.

• jim says:

db,
I may not be as smart as I think I am, but I’m smart enough to know the difference between “stopped” and “warming more slowly than before”.. So are all the climate scientists who never said “global warming stopped”. I also know the difference between cooling and warming at a reduced rate (see your Washington Post graph – it doesn’t show what you claimed – read the caption -carefully).
I was stupid to come here though…
[???? .mod]
[‘Jim’ has lost this particular debate. -another mod]

• Gloateus Maximus says:

The 20th century ended in Dec 2000, not 1999.

• jim says:

True. But that just makes the Monckton-calculated surge even longer. Lucky its only as real as his pause.

76. dcpetterson:
In the long nest of comments above, WRT to:
“The RSS data still show no global warming for 18 years 8 months, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration over the period.”
You did assert above that:
“The problem is that this claim is untrue. The RSS data shows a big spike in RSS temperatures toward the beginning of that 18 year 8 month period, which skews a trendline that starts exactly at that 18 year 8 month period. You simply cannot get a flat trend line if you start somewhere else.”
So you have not noticed that the big spike is followed by two substantial reversals, and is preceded modestly by one other cooler year?
In case you are not aware, the big spike is part of what is known as the ENSO, where the O stands forOscillation. It might be a bit difficult for you to grasp but the big spike is substantially counterbalanced in the time-series by the negative phase of that oscillation. Thus, 1998 should not be considered on its own.
Note too that the zero line starts at end January 2015 and goes back to eight months before the big spike year.
ENSO is not a predictable cycle and hence the descriptor of ‘oscillation’. It is widely opined from past climate behaviour, that 2016 will be warmer than 2015 and then there will be a negative phase the following year or so.

• You simply cannot get a flat trend line if you start somewhere else.

For the record to whoever first said this, using:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
The slope is negative for RSS for a total of 26 months as follows: 9 months from June 1997 to February 1998, 14 months from January 2001 to February 2002 and 3 months from July 2009 to September 2009.
But if February is above 0.88, very few if any months will be the start of a negative slope. This would be a jump of about 0.22 from January which can happen due to the El Nino.

77. The sub-thread that ‘dcpetterson’ was commenting on was far too long, and way upthread, so my reply to his comment is here:
dcpetterson says:
Please do not refer to climate science as “climate propaganda”.
Why not? That’s exactly what it is when people can get away with posting total propaganda like this:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
^THAT^ is climate propaganda.
Next, regarding the Phil Jones graph I posted, dc says:
…note that the last one — the one we are in now — extends higher than any of the others. Also, that temperatures are still increasing.
What else would you expect, when the planet is recovering from the Little Ice Age (LIA); one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,000+ year long Holocene? Since even the IPCC can’t separate natural variability in global temperatures (T) from the assumed AGW, all they — or you — are doing is speculating. Until you can produce a verifiable, testable, empirical and replicable measurement quantifying the fraction of AGW out of total global warming, all you are doing is making data-free assertions.
Next:
Unless you can explain what caused each of these increases…
Umm-m… no. You don’t understand: skeptics of a conjecture or hypothesis have nothing to prove. You are making the claim, therefore you are the one who needs to explain it. The onus is entirely on those making the ‘dangerous AGW’ conjecture, to provide proof, or at least strong, convincing evidence…
…but your side has completely failed. Despite your multi-million dollar GCMs, not one of you was able to predict the most significant event of the past century: the fact that global warming stopped. (I understand; the new Narrative is to lie about it now, and claim that global warming is chugging along as always. Lies are all the alarmist contingent has, because they have never produced any convincing evidence.)
Next:
There was quite a bit of coal burning going on in the nineteenth century, and coal is still a primary cause of carbon emissions.
Now you’re just winging it. A very few countries were beginning to industrialize in the 1800’s, and had started using coal, but there’s no comparison to current coal use. But let’s say you’re right, and that CO2 was rising really fast in the middle of the past century. Global temperatures should have been going up. But they weren’t. From 1940 to 1980, global T kept declining — despite steadily acceleration in CO2 emissions.
Next:
Rising temperatures now would not destroy life on Earth, but that would destroy human civilization…
If it weren’t for assertions, you wouldn’t have much to say. That whole paragraph is only your personal opinion, nothing more, so I’ll leave it as such.
Next:
If you wish to discuss the causes, we can do so.
That’s your job. You’re making the conjecture, so you need to explain it convincingly. But I have yet to see any convincing evidence showing that a rise in CO2 is the cause of rising global T.
Finally, some über-preposterous nonsense:
The climate would be getting colder now — if it were not for increased greenhouse gasses overwhelming that trend, and warming the planet instead.
May I deconstruct? Thank you:
What you’re saying is that the rise in human-emitted CO2 — which is only around 3% of the total emitted from all sources — is exactly balancing the expected decline in global T. It balances so perfectly, in fact, that as global human emissions continue to rise year-over-year, temperatures are being kept flat; like balancing a pencil on its point.
Does that pass the smell test with you? Because it reeks of preposterous nonsense to me. You’re saying that global emissions from the U.S., the EU, China, Russia, India, and a hundred smaler countries is constantly changing at the exact amount necessary to keep the planet from either warming or cooling. Is that what you believe? Sounds like religious dogma to me.

• @dbstealey ,

Rising temperatures now would not destroy life on Earth, but that would destroy human civilization…

If it weren’t for assertions, you wouldn’t have much to say. That whole paragraph is only your personal opinion, nothing more.

That’s an odd thing to say. Let me quote the paragraph you said was only my personal opinion, and see if I can tease out of it which part you objected to:

Yes, there was a great diversity of life millions of years ago. Humans were not around however, and neither was human civilization. In fact, none the plants and animals we rely on today existed then in their current form. They all evolved during conditions very different from what was “millions of years ago.” They need time to adapt if the world were to warm again, and it is now warming much too fast to allow evolutionary adaptation. Rising temperatures now would not destroy life on Earth, but that would destroy human civilization, which is something I care about.
The only “personal opinion” expressed there is my fondness for human civilization. The rest is demonstrable fact.
I assume you are not objecting to there having been “a great diversity of life millions of years ago,” since that was your statement which I was agreeing to. Nor do I think you would maintain humans or human civilization existed “millions of years ago.” If you think the plants and animals we currently rely on as part of our civilization existed “millions of years ago,” I’m afraid a quick bit of research will show you that’s not true. (Cows, dogs, pigs, sheep, corn, wheat — none of them existed in their current for “millions of years ago.”) None of these are my personal opinion. They are simply facts.
Since you pointed out climate conditions have changed over the last few million years, I can’t imagine you’d claim the animals we have today evolved in the specific conditions that existed “millions of years ago.” Finally, if conditions change, then most certainly any animals and plants alive today would have to adapt to the changed conditions in order to survive them. It was, after all, changing climate conditions (and human intervention) that caused evolution of plants and animals into their current forms in the first place. These, too, are facts, not opinions.
So I guess the parts you object to have to do with an assessment of how rapidly evolution can adapt to changing conditions, and how rapidly conditions are changing. While we can converse about that, I don’t think it was fair to say, “That whole paragraph is only your personal opinion.”

What you’re saying is that the rise in human-emitted CO2 — which is only around 3% of the total emitted from all sources — is exactly balancing the expected decline in global T. It balances so perfectly, in fact, that as global human emissions continue to rise year-over-year, temperatures are being kept flat; like balancing a pencil on its point.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. Let me repeat my comment.

The climate would be getting colder now — if it were not for increased greenhouse gasses overwhelming that trend, and warming the planet instead.

The planet is warming. The oceans, the land, the ice caps, the atmosphere — all are warming. The emission of greenhouse gasses is not “balancing” the climate cycles — the emission of greenhouse gasses is vastly overwhelming the current natural forcings.
I realize that you deny the rise in ocean heat content, the melting of the ice caps, the melting of glaciers and both Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, the increase in land and atmosphere temperature, rising ocean levels, changing growing seasons, and increased ocean acidity — along with all other lines of evidence, such as satellite confirmation that the Earth is emitting less heat as infrared radiation than it absorbs from the sun. I realize you deny all these things. Climate scientists, however, don’t, and I follow the data on this.
Thanks for the conversation. I enjoyed it, and I learned quite a lot. Be well. Perhaps we’ll talk again in a few years and compare notes.

• Gloateus Maximus says:

The wild ancestors of all the domestic species you mentioned most certainly did exist millions of years ago, by which I guess you mean the still balmy Pliocene (5.33 to 2.58 Ma), last epoch before the glacial Pleistocene. Some domestic varieties have been bred to become quite different in appearance from their forebears, such as corn (maize), but even in that extreme case, its genome is virtually identical with its ancestral grass teosinte.
Human civilization arose when temperatures were higher than now, during the Holocene optimum, and flourished during the Egyptian, Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods, which were also hotter than now. The earth is self-regulating, so it’s highly unlikely that the supposedly dangerous two-degree rise will happen in the next century. But even if it did, human civilization, humans, other animals and plants, fungi and microbes will all have plenty of time to adapt.

78. co2islife says:

displays a pattern suggesting that it originates not from above in the atmosphere, where it would have originated if CO2 had been the cause, but at or below the surface.

This is a MODTRAN output from 0.1km up with 0.00ppm and 400ppm CO2. Clearly CO2 has little to any impact on the atmospheric layer where all the thermometers are located. Ground measurements, according to MODTRAN aren’t measuring CO2’s impact, they are measuring conduction and convection.
https://co2islife.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/modtran1.jpg
https://co2islife.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/modtran2.jpg

• Bellman says:

dbstealey:

I don’t know if that was actually what Jones said, but if he did he was mistaken.
I know that’s exactly what Phil Jones said, verbatim. I’ve been following the corruption exposed in the Climategate emails since they were made public. That’s why I was able to quote him from memory.

A link to the quote would be more useful. I know my own memory often plays tricks. Maybe you are thinking about this quote from one of the hacked emails:

The box is on page S20-21 of the bigger pdf. This is part of a much bigger article
on the State of the Climate System 2008 which will appear later in the year.
Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before
we get worried. We’re really counting this from about 2004/5 and
not 1998. 1998 was warm due to the El Nino.

But there’s no mention of a 95% confidence interval, and he is specifically saying it 15 years from 2004/5.

• Bellman,
I put quote marks around Jones’ words. That’s exactly what Phil Jones said, verbatim. That’s what I was referring to. As for the Climategate info, that may be where I got it from. Or not. There is so much information on Phil Jones and the Climategate debacle in the archives here that I could spend six months re-reading it and not get through it all.

• Bellman says:

dbstealey:

Bellman,
I put quote marks around Jones’ words. That’s exactly what Phil Jones said, verbatim. That’s what I was referring to.

What you said above was:

In an interview Dr. Phil Jones was asked if global warming had stopped. He replied, “Yes, but only just.” He added that fifteen years would need to pass before it could be stated with greater than a 95% statistical certainty that global warming had stopped.

The only quote marks are around the words “Yes, but only just.”. Is that the only part you are quoting verbatim? The part I was disputing was where you only quoted him indirectly.

• Bellman

The only quote marks are around the words “Yes, but only just.”. Is that the only part you are quoting verbatim? The part I was disputing was where you only quoted him indirectly.

It is an accurate, valuable summary of Dr Jones’ comment. Quibbling about any such differences is meaningless, unless it becomes your purpose to dilute the value of the entire thread with such solvents – which solve nothing but smell the atmosphere. A goal often seen in the past by CAGW writers.

• Bellman says:

RACookPE1978:

It is an accurate, valuable summary of Dr Jones’ comment. Quibbling about any such differences is meaningless, unless it becomes your purpose to dilute the value of the entire thread with such solvents – which solve nothing but smell the atmosphere. A goal often seen in the past by CAGW writers.

Sorry, it wasn’t my intention to devalue this thread by asking for evidence for a claim. My original point was that regardless of who said it, it’s still wrong. 15 years might show a statistically significantly trend, or it might not, you can only tell by doing the statistics.
Nevertheless, I’d still like to see an actual link to something resembling dbstealey’s quote before assuming it’s accurate.

• Perhaps you should be looking up not down!

79. richardscourtney February 8, 2016 at 1:25 pm
Phil,:
What I wrote is right.
Your response started with an error which demonstrated what I wrote is right.
I replied pointing out that your error demonstrated what I wrote is right.
You have responded to that by claiming quantity equates to quality and admitting your error but failing to acknowledge or apologise for your error while pretending you have not misrepresented what Phil Jones said.
Your error was a demonstration that you cannot read what people write and you misrepresent what they say. Your pretending you understood what Phil Jones said is further demonstration of that because dbstealey was right about what Phil Jones said and you are wrong (as usual).

What stealey claimed Jones said was wrong, I quoted the actual transcripts of the BBC interview,as usual stealey (and you) are wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

• Phil.,
Yes, I was going by memory, and I posted the wrong date. I should have checked it.
That’s the difference between us. When I’m wrong I admit it. When you’re wrong — and you are, just as much as anyone — you skedaddle without a word.

• Not true, you’re the one who disappears without a trace when your ‘charts’ are shown to be wrong, and then come back moths later and post the same rubbish.

• Phil.,
If I thought my* charts were wrong, I would admit it. Unlike you. You just put tail ‘tween legs and skedaddle.
*Those aren’t my charts, they are charts I saved from what I believe to be reputable sources. Go argue with them if you’re so unhappy. But I haven’t been convinced by your assertion that they’re wrong. Because you’ve been wrong before. You just can’t admit it.

• You did more than get the date wrong:
dbstealey February 8, 2016 at 7:18 pm
Bellman says:
I don’t know if that was actually what Jones said, but if he did he was mistaken.
I know that’s exactly what Phil Jones said, verbatim. I’ve been following the corruption exposed in the Climategate emails since they were made public. That’s why I was able to quote him from memory.

You ‘misquoted him from memory’:
“In an interview Dr. Phil Jones was asked if global warming had stopped. He replied, “Yes, but only just.” He added that fifteen years would need to pass before it could be stated with greater than a 95% statistical certainty that global warming had stopped.”
In February of 2010, Phil Jones was asked some questions in an interview with the BBC. The distorted view of his reply is what you are referring to.
The question was:
“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”
To which Jones replied:
“Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.” (The trend was actually significant at the 93% level).
That’s verbatim, not what you claimed.
He did not say that 15 years would be required to achieve significance, in fact in a later interview Jones said the following:
“The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use,” Professor Jones told BBC News.
“Basically what’s changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
“It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that’s why longer series – 20 or 30 years – would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis.”

• Given your fallible memory can we have a verifiable example?
[Reply: Everyone makes errors. No one is infallible. -mod.]

• Bartemis says:

“The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.” (The trend was actually significant at the 93% level).”
In actual fact, such talk is nonsense without an accurate model of the statistical properties.
The general assumption appears to be that the variation about any trend is characterized by an AR(1) process, and a number for the correlation time is basically pulled from the air.
However, the data are not actually well characterized by such a model. They are characterized more accurately by a sum of AR(2) processes, one of which has a characteristic period of approximately 60 years. There is virtually no possibility of significant confidence in any trend estimate using much less than that span of data. A 30 year trend is just about the worst possible.

• Phil.,
It’s predictable that you can’t bear to discuss the times you’ve been wrong. When you’re caught you just disappear from the thread. Now you’re running around in circles, clucking and flapping your wings over a verbatim quote I made. You’re trying to apply the statement between the quote marks. They are quotation marks for a reason. That is what I was referring to, and you don’t get to re-frame it for your convenience. The quotation marks rule. Besides:
It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.”
~ Karl Popper
Let’s discuss your errors now, shall we? Would you like that? No, you wouldn’t. The point I made is not that you have been wrong before. Of course you have, you’re human. The point I made is that we’re different, you and me. On the rare occasions that I’ve made a misteak, I’ve admitted it. I do it partly for personal reasons: it is a self-correcting mechanism that makes me more careful.
You, on the other hand, Anonymous “Phil.”, have alawys just disappeared when someone calls you on a mistake. You slink off like a wounded animal to lick your wounds. You have never admitted to being wrong. And with your large number of comments, unless you’re Jesus Christ reincarnated, you’ve made mis-steps. I remember you being called on one only a couple of weeks ago. Your usual M.O. was followed: you disappeared.
I’m not anal retentive like a few other commenters; I don’t keep logs of your comments or anyone else’s. But I have enough common sense to know that you make mistakes. I remember thinking, ‘how will Phil. handle this one?’ You always skedaddle.
Willis is head and shoulders above you, and even he makes an occasional mistake. It’s very rare. But when he does, he mans up and admits it. In that respect, you’re very different from Willis, and me, and most others here.
I was off by a couple years regarding Jones’ time frame. So what? You’re trying to make it a big deal because that’s all you’ve got. You’re trying to avoid the fact that you make misteaks, too. We just handle it differently, you and me: I admit it when I’m wrong. You never do.
Next, I recall Dr. Phil Jones saying in the CRU emails (7/05/2009):
“Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”
Note the date.

• dbstealey February 11, 2016 at 1:54 pm
Phil.,
It’s predictable that you can’t bear to discuss the times you’ve been wrong. When you’re caught you just disappear from the thread.

I have no problem discussing such things, I asked you to give an example but you’re unable to come up with one!
Now you’re running around in circles, clucking and flapping your wings over a verbatim quote I made. You’re trying to apply the statement between the quote marks. They are quotation marks for a reason. That is what I was referring to, and you don’t get to re-frame it for your convenience. The quotation marks rule.
The four words in quotes were the only part you got right! You misrepresented the question asked and the rest of the answer despite claiming to be “able to quote him from memory”.
Let’s discuss your errors now, shall we? Would you like that? No, you wouldn’t. The point I made is not that you have been wrong before. Of course you have, you’re human. The point I made is that we’re different, you and me. On the rare occasions that I’ve made a misteak, I’ve admitted it. I do it partly for personal reasons: it is a self-correcting mechanism that makes me more careful.
You, on the other hand, Anonymous “Phil.”, have alawys just disappeared when someone calls you on a mistake. You slink off like a wounded animal to lick your wounds. You have never admitted to being wrong. And with your large number of comments, unless you’re Jesus Christ reincarnated, you’ve made mis-steps. I remember you being called on one only a couple of weeks ago. Your usual M.O. was followed: you disappeared.
There you go again, making a claim you can’t back up! By the way, being contradicted by you or courtney, for example, doesn’t mean it’s a mistake, in fact to the contrary.
I’m not anal retentive like a few other commenters; I don’t keep logs of your comments or anyone else’s. But I have enough common sense to know that you make mistakes. I remember thinking, ‘how will Phil. handle this one?’ You always skedaddle.
I was off by a couple years regarding Jones’ time frame. So what? You’re makitrying to make it a big deal because that’s all you’ve got. You’re trying to avoid the fact that you make misteaks, too. We just handle it differently, you and me: I admit it when I’m wrong. You never do.
Despite being called on some of the ‘charts’ you post you refuse to acknowledge they’re in error and continue to post them despite references to the originator of the data pouting out your error. Plots of Alley’s data from GISP for example.
Next, I recall Dr. Phil Jones saying in the CRU emails (7/05/2009):
“Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”
Note the date.

Yes it predates the interview which was the subject of these posts by about 6 months, what’s your point?

• richardscourtney says:

Phil.:
I write in hope of helping you understand what you say you don’t.

Yes it predates the interview which was the subject of these posts by about 6 months, what’s your point?

dbstealey’s correct and accurate point is that you were and are wrong. Please read what he wrote; viz

Next, I recall Dr. Phil Jones saying in the CRU emails (7/05/2009):

Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”

Note the date.

The date then was in 2009 and, therefore, a ‘no upward trend’ from then for more than 15 years would make them “get worried” (i.e. would falsify their climate model projections). Other start dates could also apply because of the word “continue”, but more than 15 years from 2009 is THE one absolutely certain and indisputable meaning of what Jones said.
No amount of your usual wriggling will overcome the simple fact that what dbstealey said was right. Will you now admit your error, or will you run away as is your usual practice when you are shown to be wrong?
Richard

• Richard Courtney,
I suspect that all we’ll see is the usual tap-dancing by ‘Phil.’ He is still trying to say that what was outside the quote marks is the quote.
That’s wrong. As I commented to Bellman:
I put quote marks around Jones’ words. That’s exactly what Phil Jones said, verbatim. That’s what I was referring to. As for the Climategate info, that may be where I got it from. Or not. There is so much information on Phil Jones and the Climategate debacle in the archives here that I could spend six months re-reading it and not get through it all.
The ‘elephant in the room’ in all this discussion is the fact that Planet Earth is simply not doing what the alarmist crowd endlessly predicted. The planet is not doing what they want. So they try to beat the data into submission in an effort to convince readers that dangerous AGW is right around the corner, or they quibble and nitpick over what is, or isn’t, a quote: “Oh, look! A squirrel!”
But their runaway global warming has been right around the corner for more than 18 years now, and their failed predictions sound like the boy crying “Wolf!” Or more accurately, like Chicken Little clucking that the sky is falling…
…but the sky isn’t falling. It was only a tiny acorn; an appropriate parable, no?

• richardscourtney February 13, 2016 at 9:09 am
Phil.:
I write in hope of helping you understand what you say you don’t.

dbstealey February 13, 2016 at 11:17 am
Richard Courtney,
I suspect that all we’ll see is the usual tap-dancing by ‘Phil.’ He is still trying to say that what was outside the quote marks is the quote.
That’s wrong.
The two prime prevaricators on the blog chime in and get everything wrong as usual!
richardscourtney February 13, 2016 at 9:09 am
Phil.:
I write in hope of helping you understand what you say you don’t.
Yes it predates the interview which was the subject of these posts by about 6 months, what’s your point?
dbstealey’s correct and accurate point is that you were and are wrong. Please read what he wrote; viz
I know it’s difficult for you to keep up courtney but what stealey said, and what i responded to was:
“In an interview Dr. Phil Jones was asked if global warming had stopped. He replied, “Yes, but only just.” He added that fifteen years would need to pass before it could be stated with greater than a 95% statistical certainty that global warming had stopped.”
As I posted before this is false, Phil Jones was not asked “if global warming had stopped”, he was asked “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”
“Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
He did not add “that fifteen years would need to pass before it could be stated with greater than a 95% statistical certainty that global warming had stopped”, hint the period discussed was already 15 years!
“The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use. Basically what’s changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that’s why longer series – 20 or 30 years – would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis.”
stealey tried to wriggle out of his problem by the following
Next, I recall Dr. Phil Jones saying in the CRU emails (7/05/2009):
Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”
Note the date.

To which I replied:
“Yes it predates the interview which was the subject of these posts by about 6 months, what’s your point?”
To justify stealey’s statement that Phil Jones added that fifteen years would need to pass” Phil Jones would have needed to have had a Tardis.
Also, it was not ‘no upward trend’ in the period mentioned in the question (it was actually +0.12ºC/decade), but whether it was statistically significant, on year later from 1995-2010 it was positive and statistically significant at the 95% level.
courtney said: ‘No amount of your usual wriggling will overcome the simple fact that what dbstealey said was right. Will you now admit your error, or will you run away as is your usual practice when you are shown to be wrong?
Well I’ve demonstrated that what stealey said was wrong, so it’s your turn to admit your error, I won’t hold my breath.

• Well I’ve demonstrated that what stealey said was wrong…
No, you only believe you have. Wake me when you understand quotation marks.

• Well stealey we agree that the four words you put in quotes are correct, unfortunately they’re the only part of your posting that is correct, you got the question wrong and the rest of the statement wrong.
Of course you won’t apologize for your errors because despite your blustering it’s not what you do.

• Phil,
You assert that I’m wrong, but that’s only because you’re only parsing it the way you want.
That makes you wrong.

• Typical stealey he knows he’s lost the argument, he can’t argue the facts so he makes some stupid remark and runs away!
No amount of parsing will make ‘has global warming stopped’ = ‘Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming’.
Over that whole period of 15 years the trend was +0.12ºC/decade.
You messed it up stealey, your memory let you down, man up and admit it.
You claimed that when you make mistakes you admit them, as a self-correcting mechanism that makes you more careful. So here’s a example for you to learn from, not to make quick posts from memory and get them wrong, check the facts first.

• Typical “Phil.”, he knows he’s lost the argument, but he can’t argue the facts so he makes some stupid remark and runs away!
Wake me when A.C. “Phil” learns what quotation marks mean.
You messed it up stealey, your memory let you down, man up and admit it.
Unlike you, “Phil”, I already wrote that I got the year wrong. I did it promptly, a few days ago. You could look it up, if you wanted to get your facts straight. But you’re still fixated on it for only one reason; to deflect from the central issue:
Global warming stopped many years ago. You were wrong, “Phil”. Completely wrong, like the rest of the alarmist crowd. You picked the wrong side of the argument, and Planet Earth is making a fool of you.
It’s time you checked the facts. Global warming stopped. You were wrong. Admit it.

• dbstealey February 16, 2016 at 8:48 am
Unlike you, “Phil”, I already wrote that I got the year wrong. I did it promptly, a few days ago.

Yeah, it took about a day for you to respond to my pointing that error out.
You could look it up, if you wanted to get your facts straight. But you’re still fixated on it for only one reason; to deflect from the central issue:
No you made several other errors which you have refused to acknowledge, the only thing you got right were the four words in quotes. You got the question Jones was responding to wrong and made erroneous claims about his follow-up remarks.
Global warming stopped many years ago. You were wrong, “Phil”. Completely wrong, like the rest of the alarmist crowd. You picked the wrong side of the argument, and Planet Earth is making a fool of you.
It’s time you checked the facts. Global warming stopped. You were wrong. Admit it.

It hasn’t stopped, and your ‘cherry picking’ won’t make it so.

• Anonymous Phil sez:
Yeah, it took about a day for you to respond…
So? That’s the best you’ve got? Lame.
You keep harping on what’s a truly minor error, and as if you never make misteaks. But you make mistakes too, because you’re no different from anyone else. More anal retentive maybe…
…the only thing you got right were the four words in quotes.
As the great Ronald Reagan would say, “There he goes again.” Phil, my little chihuahua, when words are in quotation marks, that is the quote. You’re twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to make an issue where none exists. And since you write your comments during working hours, 24/7, you’re cheating your employer. But that’s been pointed out before.
Next, you assert that global warming…
…hasn’t stopped, and your ‘cherry picking’ won’t make it so.
LOLOL!! Phil, my little anonymous coward, less than one year ago everyone, IPCC included, was coming up with dozens of reasons trying to explain why global warming had stopped. One year ago, you were not arguing that global warming was chugging along as always. But now you are.
So you have no credibility. You’re just parroting the latest talking points.
Now, if you want a couple dozen links showing that everyone was trying to figure out why global warming had stopped, just ask. “Pretty please” will make it 3 dozen links. ☺
(I might add that I’m retired and taking care of an invalid; I have plenty of time to reply. So every time you try to get in the last word… it won’t work, puppy. I’ll be here to set you straight… ‘global warming hasn’t stopped,’ heh)

• Phil. says:

dbstealey February 16, 2016 at 1:22 pm

I do not post during my working hours so you’re wrong, no surprise there.
One year ago, you were not arguing that global warming was chugging along as always. But now you are.
I haven’t changed my opinion on the fact that global warming hasn’t stopped, nor what I post on so you’re wrong again.

80. Bill Everett says:

Sometime around 2032, observers of the global temperature graphs will observe that the period from 2002 until around 2032 will closely approximate the periods from 1880-1910 and 1944-1974. They may then predict that the period from 2032 until around 2062 will closely approximate the periods 1910-1944 and 1974-2002. They may also conclude that there is a high probability that the previous record of temperature behavior is probably a valid predictor of future temperature behavior, at least over a period of up to 500 years. Hopefully, there may also occur a widespread notion that the ridiculously low level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a non-player where current global temperature is concerned. With equal hope one can wish that such a realization will occur before then. Global warming caused by a gas that is present in only one part per 2500 parts of atmosphere. Give me a break.

• Global warming caused by a gas that is present in only one part per 2500 parts of atmosphere.

Cyanide in your bloodstream in that concentration will certainly kill you.
The question isn’t so much the concentration per se as it is the strength of the effect of the particular substance.

They may also conclude that there is a high probability that the previous record of temperature behavior is probably a valid predictor of future temperature behavior, at least over a period of up to 500 years.

That’s unlikely, because temperature does not “behave”. Global climate changes over timescales of multiple decades are effects which have causes. They don’t just happen automagically according to some uncaused rhythm. If the causes change, then so will the effects. You can project a likely future change if you understand what has caused changes in the past, and if you know what comparable causes are affecting the situation now. Merely charting prior changes won’t tell you very much about the future.
That’s the reason climate scientists are confident in their projections of continued warming–not because they project past trends into the future, but because they can explain those past trends by looking at the what caused those trends to happen, and looking at which of those causes continue today.
This isn’t just statistics. Climatologists aren’t just manipulating numbers that relate to past measurements. Any assertion that global temperature increase will suddenly stop requires one to deny what we know to be true of physics, chemistry, orbital mechanics, fluid dynamics, oceanography, paleontology, biology, and a host of other sciences. Playing statistical games with noisy datasets the way Monckton is doing is just mathturbation.

• dcpetterson says:
Cyanide in your bloodstream in that concentration will certainly kill you.
Oh, please, not that old canard. CO2 is not cyanide.
CO2 is every bit as essential to life on earth as H2O is.
A little water can kill you, too. If that’s the best argument you can come up with, you belong at hotwhopper.
And:
Climatologists aren’t just manipulating numbers that relate to past measurements.
Maybe not. But they do plenty of manipulating, and the result always ends up showing scarier global warming, never cooling. What are the odds of that, eh?

81. Gloateus Maximus says:

Shouldn’t the past going on 20 years be called a plateau rather than a pause, since no one knows if the next identifiable temperature trend will be up or down? Given history, moves down follow moves up at most if not all time scales.

• Shouldn’t the past going on 20 years be called a plateau rather than a pause,

No.

since no one knows if the next identifiable temperature trend will be up or down?

Long term, the trend is up. This is absolutely known, without question.

Given history, moves down follow moves up at most if not all time scales.

You may be referring to the concept of “reversion to the mean,”, which means that a short-term deviation in one direction from a long-term trend will likely be followed by a comparable short-term deviation in the other direction, thus cancelling out the original deviation.
In this case, the known long-term trend is sharply upward. The short-term deviation has been a slight downward anomaly, which taken the form of a faux “pause”. It will likely be cancelled by a short-term deviation in the opposite direction, which is an even sharper upward spike, These will cancel, and the long-term trend trend of increasing global temperatures will resume.
We saw this previously in the early 1970s when temperatures rose only slowly, to be followed by a very rapid increase in the late 70s. Another slow period happened in the early 80s, followed by extremely rapid increases in the late 80s. Another slow period happened in the early 90s, followed by an amazingly rapid rise in global temperatures from about 1995 to about 2005 (with the unusual enormous El Nino spike in 1997 that Monckton is so on about).
The 70s were slightly warmer than the 60s. The 80s were significantly warmer than the 70s. The 90s were quite a bit warmer than the 80s. The 2000s were a lot warmer than the 90s. And so far, the 2010’s are blowing away the 2000’s. Decade by decade, the world is undeniably heating.
So yes, we know what the next identifiable trend will be — long term anyway, and that’s all that matters.

Shouldn’t the past going on 20 years be called a plateau rather than a pause…
“No.”
That’s not an answer, that’s just an assertion; an opinion. A baseless opinion, since it’s based on nothing more than… your opinion.
So much for credibility, eh? And it gets worse. You cite “hotwhopper” as your authority.
Now we know where you get your misinformation from: a thinly trafficked blog run by a lunatic real estate saleswoman. (Ahem… an *allegedly* lunatic saleswoman. Person. Or whatever.)
You’ll understand if I don’t click on your link. I never give clicks to that blog, as both her readers know. Why anyone would pay attention to a real estate agent’s opinion on the state of the climate is a mystery. But it does explain how you get your misinformation.

• richardscourtney says:

dbstealey:
I, too, laughed at the ludicrous answers to Gloateus Maximus from dcpetterson, but you didn’t mention the funniest answer from dcpetterson.

since no one knows if the next identifiable temperature trend will be up or down?

and dcpetterson replied

Long term, the trend is up. This is absolutely known, without question.

The obvious point is that the future is an unknown land and whatever is causing the Pause is now negating any other trends so it cannot be known if the Pause will end with warming or cooling.
The funniest point is that dcpetterson’s assertion is the opposite of reality.
In reality, long term (i.e. over the last 10,000 years) the trend is DOWN. This is absolutely known, without question.
Short term (i.e. over the last 300 years) recovery from the LIA has caused the trend to be up. This is also absolutely known, without question.
In future (i.e. when the Pause ends) the trend will be up if recovery from the LIA continues or will be down if recovery from the LIA has ceased. Either up or down is absolutely known, without question.
Richard

• Richard,
As usual, you cut to the heart of the matter. The long term trend is clearly down. There will be fluctuations along the way, but unless there is a sustained rise in global T, the Null Hypothesis remains un-falsified.
The alarmist cult uses “Say Anything” as a tactic. But Planet Earth always has a way of debunking their belief system.

• dcpetterson,
“You may be referring to the concept of “reversion to the mean”…”
No, GM does not mean that. For instance El Nino spikes are only part of ENSO events as I pointed out to you up-thread (and which you ignored).
RSS data downloaded into EXCEL reveals averages for two big El Nino peak years together with their surrounding 4-years that probably define the full oscillation (including the corrective La Nina).
1998 El Nino spike year = 0.55 C
1997 > 2000 = 0.21 C (Four-year average including 1998 spike)
2010 El Nino spike year = 0.47 C
2008 > 2011 = 0.22 C (Four -year average including 2010 spike)
1997 > =0.25 C (eighteen years plus January 2016)
Notice that the four-year averages are slightly below the 18+ average of “The Pause” (which I think would be better named ‘plateau’).
From past performance, 2017/18 should correct the expected warm 2016.

• Richard,
It helps to laugh over this stuff,
Cheers Bob Fernley-Jones

• richardscourtney says:

bobfj:
I agree “It helps to laugh over this stuff” and recently the laughs are coming thick and fast possibly because warmunists are feeling ‘cornered’ by the accelerating demise of the AGW-scare.
Here we are discussing the silly assertions that dcpetterson copies from – he admits – hotwhopper!
But dcpetterson’s behaviour is not the daftest display from what dbstealey calls the recent “gaggle”. Another poster – who repeatedly tried to wave ‘red herrings’ in this thread – repeatedly copied stuff to another thread, demonstrated he understood nothing of what he had copied, then claimed to have worked at UKMO for 47 years!
Laugh? You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Richard

• Gloateus Maximus says:

Indeed I did not refer to regression to the mean.
Climate cycles on timescales from multidecadal to the order of 100 million years. As Richard notes, the current millennial-scale, long-term GASTA trend is down, for at least 3000 years if not 10,000. Antarctic ice quit retreating 3000 years ago.
On the centennial scale, we are in the Modern Warming Period, which followed the Little Ice Age Cold Period, which followed the Medieval WP (centered on c. AD 1000), which followed the Dark Ages CP, which followed the Roman WP (BC/AD), which followed the Greek Dark Ages CP, which followed Minoan WP (1000 BC), which followed a cold period, which followed the Egyptian WP (2000 BC), which followed a cold period, which followed the Holocene Climatic Optimum (3000 BC).
On the multidecadal scale, we’re coming out of the late 20th century warming cycle, so should expect the next 30 years to be cooler. Although being in the Modern Warming Period, the secular trend is warmer, but each warm interval is still followed by a counter-trend cool cycle, just as in prior interglacials. During cool periods such as the LIA, the secular trend is cooler, but interrupted by counter-trend warm intervals, often pronounced, as in c. AD 1710-40, recovering from the depths of the Maunder Minimum. These cycles typically last 25-30 years, associated with the main oceanic oscillations. CO2 has little to do with it, being an effect more than a cause of T fluctuations.

82. Bellman says:

Dr Roy Spencer’s UAH v.6 satellite lower-temperature dataset shows the Pause has already (just) disappeared.

This is now out of date, as Dr Roy Spencer has adjusted the beta data again, and UAH now shows a Great Pause starting in October 1997.

• and UAH now shows a Great Pause starting in October 1997

Thank you very much for that! It was my understanding that if the January 2016 anomaly was added to the UAH6.0beta4, then the pause would have disappeared. But now that all of beta5 has been published, we see that there have been many changes. For example, the warmest 14 years were all changed by between 0.001 and 0.003. I could give all numbers, but I will just give 2: 1998 went up from 0.482 to 0.484; 2015 went down from 0.266 to 0.264.
If you wish to see all, check the numbers opposite the 12 month “global” for each year.
Beta4:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta4.txt
Beta5:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta5.txt

• Bellman says:

Thank you very much for that! It was my understanding that if the January 2016 anomaly was added to the UAH6.0beta4, then the pause would have disappeared. But now that all of beta5 has been published, we see that there have been many changes. For example, the warmest 14 years were all changed by between 0.001 and 0.003. I could give all numbers, but I will just give 2: 1998 went up from 0.482 to 0.484; 2015 went down from 0.266 to 0.264.

Of course the problem with adding January 2016 to the old data is that we don’t know if January would have been the same under version 4. UAH haven’t updated version 4 to include January yet.
However, it’s interesting that none of the monthly changes are significant – no more than 0.04 degrees in any month, and the change in any long term trend has only changed by completely insignificant amounts, just a few hundredths of a degree per century. Yet this is enough to change from no pause whatsoever, to a pause lasting over 18 years. I think this illustrates why I regard the pause as defined by Monckton to be statistically meaningless.

• Bellman says:

I should point out that the above is comparing versions 4 and 5 of the current beta UAH data. The official UAH data (5.6) does not show any pause, and has been rising at 0.9C per century since October 1997.

83. {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}
Christopher Monckton led off his WUWT lead post with,
“The sharp el Niño spike is just about to abolish the long Pause in global temperatures – at least for now. This column has long foretold that the present el Niño would be substantial, and that it might at least shorten if not extinguish the Pause. After all, theory requires that some global warming ought to occur.”

The creators and supporters of the ‘GW hypothesis’ ** posit, a priori, that it is caused by man. They (see IPCC charter) do not focus on the total body of Earth Atmosphere System (EAS) evidence which marginalizes the credibility of the GW hypothesis.
Christopher Monckton, I suggest the best strategy of the independent critical individuals applying objective reasoning processes (aka – some of the Skeptics) is to publicly stress that the ‘GW hypothesis’ is a self-limiting and purposely isolated myopic focus on human beings.
** GW hypothesis is that burning fossil fuels must result in GASTA increases regardless of all existing natural dynamics of the Earth Atmosphere System (EAS) and regardless of contrary geological knowledge of past temperatures in Earth’s pre-industrial climate.
John

84. Bill Everett says:

“That is unlikely because temperature does not behave.” A review of the recorded temperature since 1880 reveals a pretty definite temperature “behavior.” Thirty years or so of pause followed by about thirty years of a little less than one degree F of temperature rise. A definite pattern has emerged and has held from 1880 until the present. It may not continue but there is no current evidence that it won’t continue until the end of the current 500 year warming cycle that should end about 2350. The recent effort by Dr. Carl to alter the pattern by disclaiming the current pause will probably not be supported by the future temperature record if it is not improperly recorded.

85. Someone needs to tell Christy and Spencer at UAH to get with the program. In reporting on their January satellite data, it was noted,

… warming has increased so much recently that Christy and Spencer also report that global average temperature trend since they last reported in December has now been bumped up from +0.11°C per decade to +0.12°C per decade.

So, the satellite data says global warming is now at +0.12°C per decade, which is +.1.2°C per century, which is right about what NASA and NOAA say.
Also, (emphasis mine):

In their notes, Christy and Spencer observed that, as was widely anticipated, “global temperatures in January set a record for the month, eclipsing January 1998 as the warmest January in the satellite temperature dataset. In a sense, that could mean 2016 is in a “race” to see if it will pass 1998 as the warmest year on record. In addition to a major El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event, 2016 has 17 years of warming to raise the base temperature from which the El Niño begins.

Someone needs to tell Christy and Spencer about Monckton’s cherry-picked start point — or someone needs to tell Monckton that the people who actually produce the satellite data (Christy and Spencer and the folks at RSS) don’t agree with the notion of a “pause”.

• 2016 has 17 years of warming to raise the base temperature from which the El Niño begins

With all due respect, the above is poorly phrased. Here are the top 14 years for UAH6.0beta5:

```UAH6.0beta5 (With January 2016 Data)
1       1998    0.484
2       2010    0.339
3       2015    0.264
4       2002    0.216
5       2005    0.199
6       2003    0.186
7       2014    0.183
8       2007    0.160
9       2013    0.136
10      2001    0.114
11      2006    0.113
12      2009    0.097
13      2004    0.080
14      1995    0.070```

The most recent 7 full years are from 2009 to 2015. Yet only 3 of those 7 years are in the top 7. The most significant numbers are that 2015 was in third place at an anomaly of 0.264 but 1997 was way down at -0.007.

• @Werner Brozek,
Thanks for your data, but it doesn’t address Christy and Spencer’s point. I went to woodfortrees,org and graphed the last seventeen years of UAH data, and this is what I got:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/plot/uah/from:2000/trend
I suspect this isn’t the recently-adjusted and modified UAH6.0beta5 data though. Can you do a graph with trendline of the last seventeen years of that data, so we can compare it to Christy and Spencer’s point? Thanks.

• Gloateus Maximus says:

IMO, the ten years 2016-2025 will be cooler than 2006-15 and 1996-2005. And maybe the period 2026-35 than 1986-95 and 1976-85. A return to the chilly interval of 1946-75 is possible.

• @Gloateus Maximus,
So let’s check back again in 2025, and once more in 2035, to see how well your expectations hold up.
In the meantime, do you have a summary of the physical processes that will cause the changes in temperature that you expect?
I ask because climatologists have detailed physics and chemistry and fluid dynamics which power their expectations. We know how the chemistry of the atmosphere interacts with visible light and with infrared radiation, and with the ocean and glaciers and ice sheets and the like. Physicists also know quite a lot about solar output and orbital mechanics. That’s why climatologists are really confidant that long-term trends seen in the last half century are going to continue.
If you have a description of physical processes that will cause the fluctuations you expect, it would be interesting to see what you have. There might be some reason to think your expectations are more likely than the expectations based on known physics and chemistry and geology and botany and oceanographics. What’cha got?

• Bellman says:

dcpetterson:

I suspect this isn’t the recently-adjusted and modified UAH6.0beta5 data though. Can you do a graph with trendline of the last seventeen years of that data, so we can compare it to Christy and Spencer’s point? Thanks.

Yes, I’m pretty sure WFT will be using UAH 5.6, a presume because that is still the “official” version. By my calculations the trends since the start of 1999 are,
UAH 5.6: +1.62C per century
UAH beta 6 v5: +0.74C per century

• Bellman,
Thanks for those calculations.

• Can you do a graph with trendline of the last seventeen years of that data, so we can compare it to Christy and Spencer’s point?

You need to go to:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
However it only goes to December with UAH6.0beta4. WFT only does UAH5.6.
Here are the last 17 years:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 1999 to Dec 2015
Rate: 0.708°C/Century;
CI from -0.215 to 1.632;
t-statistic 1.503;
Temp range 0.061°C to 0.181°C
(So yes, the last 17 years give a positive slope.)
Here are the last 18 years where the slope is negative:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 1998 to Dec 2015
Rate: -0.043°C/Century;
CI from -1.212 to 1.127;
t-statistic -0.071;
Temp range 0.145°C to 0.137°C

• @Werner Brozek

(So yes, the last 17 years give a positive slope.)

As Christy and Spencer said, the 2015/2016 El Nino has had 17 years of warming to raise its baseline over that of the 1997/1998 El Nino.
Thanks for confirming, as Christy and Spencer said, the Earth has continued to warm in the last 17 years — even in the recently-“adjusted” UAH data. I appreciate it.
And when you go to 18 years (and start at the peak of the 1997/1998 El Nino), then you get a negative slope — because you’re starting with that massive El Nino. Thanks for confirming that as well.
I think we’ve settled this question, yes?

• Gloateus Maximus says:

I have climate history, ie the real world instead of GIGO models and faulty assumptions falsified by observations.
Since the end of the LIA c. 1850, roughly 30 years of warming were followed by 30 years of cooling, which were followed by 30 years of warming, followed by 30 years of cooling, followed by 30 years of warming (more like 20 in that case), which has been followed so far by a flat to slightly cooling spell.
During the late LIA, from its depths during the Maunder Minimum, there were in the early 18th century 30 years of warming more rapid and of higher magnitude than the late 20th century warming, followed by a flat spell, followed by the Dalton Minimum cooling, so the pattern apparently wasn’t quite as cyclical then. But the Maunder was unusually frigid, so the cycle might have been slightly perturbed.
This basic pattern of alternating warming and cooling also extends as far back in the Holocene as you care to look, and in other interglacials. To an even greater amplitude, it also happens during glacials.

• Werner,
‘dcpetterson’ says:
I think we’ve settled this question, yes?
He still doesn’t understand.
I’d recommend putting ‘Monckton’ in the search box. Start at the beginning. Lord M has been amazingly consistent, and has answered all the questions raised here many times before.
His California State Assembly testimony described the following predictions:
• Global temperature is rising more slowly than IPCC’s least estimate
• Sea level has been rising for eight years at just 1.3 inches/century
• Ocean heat content has barely risen in 6 years
• Hurricanes and tropical cyclones are quieter than for 30 years
• Global sea-ice extent has changed little in 30 years
• Methane concentration is up just 20 parts per billion since 2000
• The tropical hot-spot the IPCC predicts as our footprint is absent
• Outgoing radiation is escaping to space much as usual.
All of the alarming predictions made over the years have failed. They were wrong. All of them.
When one side of a debate have been consistently, universally wrong in everything they’ve predicted, rational folks will begin to question either their science, or their motives.
One thing is certain: there are no skeptics on the alarmist side of the debate.

• Gloateus Maximus says:

Considering the flattish interval in the mid- to late 18th century (c. 1740-90), the CET shows a slightly truncated (c. 25-year warming followed by a similarly shorter than usual cooling, neither drastic) before descent into the Dalton Minimum cold spell, probably second only to the Maunder in LIA chilliness.
So not out of pattern at all.

• I think we’ve settled this question, yes?

It is not that straightforward.
Check out this 14 year period where the slope was negative:
Temperature Anomaly trend
Jan 2001 to Dec 2014
Rate: -0.191°C/Century;
CI from -1.362 to 0.979;
t-statistic -0.320;
Temp range 0.144°C to 0.117°C
Any time you start with an El Nino, the slope is as negative as can be. When you start with a La Nina, it is as positive as can be. Since the above negative 14 year period is inside the 17 year period, I cannot agree that we have 17 years of warming.
It is more like a 14 year flat period followed by El Nino conditions that made 2015 the third warmest on record. And the later months were especially warm. 2016 is merely building on this, whereas 1998 had much less to build on.

• I think we’ve settled this question, yes?
He still doesn’t understand.

His “problem” is not with Monckton. It is with Spencer and Christy who appear to contradict Monckton. See my explanation here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/06/the-pause-hangs-on-by-its-fingernails/comment-page-1/#comment-2142739

In addition to a major El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event, 2016 has 17 years of warming to raise the base temperature from which the El Niño begins.

I would rephrase that as follows: Temperatures were pretty static until an El Nino warmed 2015, and now 2016 is building on a warm 2015.

• dcpetterson,
“Someone needs to tell Christy and Spencer about Monckton’s cherry-picked start point — or someone needs to tell Monckton that the people who actually produce the satellite data (Christy and Spencer and the folks at RSS) don’t agree with the notion of a “pause”.”
It seems that you may not have actually read the lead article:
• Is there something you don’t understand about the stated methodology quoted next? (Let me know if you need more help). The start point is at the end of the time-series and treated mathematically to run back to find the full extent of net zero trend:
“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.”
• Christopher Monckton does not need to be informed of Dr Mears disagreement because he devotes about a whole page to discussing it. Hint: do a search for: ‘dr mears writes’

• @bobfj
Thanks for your response. To your first point, yes, I read the article. Being a skeptic, I didn’t take Monckton’s careful wording at face value. I ask you to review the part where Monckton says, “It is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.”
As I and others explained in the comments above, there are exactly six months in the entire RSS data record going back to 1979 which show a “zero trend” from then until January of 2016. Nick Stokes’ graph above in the comments (search for the phrase, “I’ll show this plot again”) shows where those six points are. That graph also explains why Monckton carefully chose 2001 as his comparison point in the passage that begins ‘dr mears writes’. As Nick Stokes’ graph shows, one of the six zero trend points starts in 2001.
As Monckton admits, he looked for the longest of these six time periods. You can check it yourself at woodfortrees.org. Call up the RSS data with various start points, and graph a linear trendline. Try, for instance, 2008 or 2003 as starting points. You won’t get a zero trendline. I’ve challenged others to do so, but they seem reluctant to look at the data.
Monckton did not go back in time from 2016, trying each month until he finally found one that didn’t show a flat trendline (which is what he seems to imply, and what others here seem to think he did). Instead, he went back in time from 2016, trying each month until he finally found one that did show a flat trendline. There aren’t many such months. He did this, because that’s what he wanted to find. He chose the longest one, because that’s what he wanted. That is also what he said he did, if you read him carefully. It is a classic example of cherry picking, despite his denial of it (i.e., examining the data looking for a pre-decided result that is not consistent with the majority of the data).
To your second point, as I suggested, someone should tell Christy and Spencer about Monckton’s assertions, to see if they modify their their statement that “2016 has 17 years of warming to raise the base temperature from which the El Niño begins“ as compared to 2008.

• @bobfj
I want to stress my point, at the risk of being redundant. Please read this paragraph carefully:
“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.
Monckton says flat out. the cherry picking he did wasn’t for the purpose of coinciding with the el Niño. It was for the purpose of finding the earliest of the few existing zero-trend start points. Monckton is very clear about this. He didn’t care about coinciding with the el Niño. He cared about ferreting out those obscure zero-trend start points.
Why do you think every month he has to change the date at which Something Happened in the past to supposedly stop the warming trend? Every month, he discovers that the date he had last month for this momentous Global Warming Stop Event has somehow changed. He never tells us what the physical process was that stopped the warming trend. He just keeps changing the date when it happened. It is as if, as time goes by, the date of the 9/11 attacks keeps changing to a later and later date — maybe it “really” happened in October or December or January of the following year.
The fact that he keeps changing the start date, and that you can’t find a zero trend on more than a half-dozen start dates in the whole record since 1979, tells us that this “pause” exercise doesn’t describe real-world events. It only describes short-term statistical noise. Monckton even admits this, by telling us exactly what result he searched for in the statistical data dump.

• It is as if, as time goes by, the date of the 9/11 attacks keeps changing to a later and later date

(I am more or less repeating my earlier comments that may have been missed.)
No, that is not the case! Suppose a reporter wanted to say the longest time in the past when oil was as low as today. He would come up with X years and Y months. Is that a cherry pick? No way! Now suppose oil drops further next month and the time when it was at the new low is 4 months earlier and this is reported as such. This is also not a cherry pick. Now should the price go up, the new time may be 5 months later when the oil was that low. Again, this is not a cherry pick. You are just factually reporting how long ago the oil price was as low as today.

you can’t find a zero trend on more than a half-dozen start dates

He looks for below 0 actually.
The slope is negative for RSS for a total of 26 months as follows: 9 months from June 1997 to February 1998, 14 months from January 2001 to February 2002 and 3 months from July 2009 to September 2009.
But if February is above 0.88, very few if any months will be the start of a negative slope.

• @Werner Brozek

The slope is negative for RSS for a total of 26 months as follows: 9 months from June 1997 to February 1998, 14 months from January 2001 to February 2002 and 3 months from July 2009 to September 2009..

Thanks. So, from 1979 through 2015, a period of 27 years, there are 444 months. Of those 444 months, 26 (or less than 6%) show a negative trendline from that month to today — and all 26 of them are clustered into three brief groups within the last half of that 444-month period. This indicates the over-all long-term tend is up, and one can only argue otherwise by cherry-picking some recent short-term noise.
If you want to argue that Something Happened to change the slope of this trend around eighteen and a half years ago or so, then tell us what that Something was. You are arguing that the trendline of global temperatures in the troposphere (up where airplanes live) changed as in the following graph.
Also that the moment in the past where the trendline broke keeps altering itself somehow.
If a reporter wanted to claim the price of oil changed its trajectory at some point in the past, that reporter would look for some world event to explain the change in the trajectory of the price of oil.
Tell us, what was that event that changed the trendline of world temperatures in the troposphere (up where airplanes live)?

But if February is above 0.88, very few if any months will be the start of a negative slope.

True. That’s because the “negative slopes” are all artifacts of noisy data, and are not indicative of any actual long-term physical processes. The long-term physical process that is driving the overall changes we’re seeing is AGW.

• I had a typo. 1979 through 2015 is, of course, 37 years, not 27.
It is significant that only the RSS data shows this Global Event that indicates a supposed break and sudden jump in temperature trend in early 1997 and sudden, unprecedented transition to a temperature flatline. UAH doesn’t show it, and UAH uses basically the same raw data. Glacial melts don’t show it. Surface temperatures don’t show it. Neither does ocean surface temperatures, or deep-sea heat content. Nor do melting ice sheets or the continued shrinking of sea ice. Nor is there any indication of such a Global Event anywhere in the weather data. The only possible culprit is the 1997/1998 El Nino, and Monckton is quite clear that he says that’s not it.
Since only the RSS data shows this break, and even then only if you pick exactly the right moment to graph it, this seems to indicate either that the RSS data is noisy, or that it may be an outlier.

• dcpetterson,
“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.”
Along the way there are ups and downs, which are the features that the OLS linear regression is used to smooth away. You should not be confused by any shorter term positive and negative slopes findable in between.
If you download the RSS data into a spreadsheet and check for the (longest) period as determined by Christopher Monckton, you will find that his statement is true. He also states that come February the pause will probably end (when starting from end February).
You also accuse that just because this current longest period of 18,8 years ends in 1997 it is cherry-picking the 1998 EL Nino hot year. In fact, that just happens to be where the longest zero trend ends, and is thus not a cherry-pick.
More inconvenient for you is that you continue to focus on the peak of the ENSO event but if you consider the average of the whole oscillation, (roughly four-years), it is slightly cooler than the average of the 18,8 year average. (See up-thread for more detail, including 2010).
Note too that Christopher Monckton has pledged to continue the monthly assessments which would embrace the peak of the 2015/16 El Nino. Would you accuse him of cherry-picking then too?

• dcpetterson,
Sorry, I mean to emphasise as follows:
“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 only possible culprit is the 1997/1998 El Nino, and Monckton is quite clear that he says that’s not it.

That is correct since you can also get a negative slope from January 2001 as noted.

UAH doesn’t show it

WFT uses 5.6 so it does not show it, but 6.0beta4 also shows it. Even beta5 shows it as starting from October 1997.

This indicates the over-all long-term tend is up. The long-term physical process that is driving the overall changes we’re seeing is AGW.

How do you know it is not simply a recovery from the LIA? And even if it were AGW, the rate is clearly not catastrophic.

and one can only argue otherwise by cherry-picking some recent short-term noise.

“Recent” can mean many things, but anything over 15 or 17 years is significant according to people who claim to be experts.

• richardscourtney says:

bobfj and dcpatterson:
Please note that dcpetterson is being egregiously and deliberately disingenuous. For example, he again asserts

Monckton says flat out. the cherry picking he did wasn’t for the purpose of coinciding with the el Niño.

But in this thread it has repeatedly been explained to dcpetterson (e.g. here) that Viscount Monckton adopted his method because that method removes the possibility of any cherry-picking.
However, dcpetterson ignores all information and continues to parrot untrue talking points he admits he gleaned from h0twh0pper.
Richard

86. dcetterson says:
Being a skeptic,…
LOLOL!!
Stop it, you’re killing me!
Now, on a more serious matter, he’re’s a WFT chart that debunks just about everything you believe in.
“Skeptic” …heh

• Bellman says:

Now, on a more serious matter, he’re’s a WFT chart that debunks just about everything you believe in.

What scale are you using for CO2? Here’s my rescaled WFT graph, looking at all the RSS data.

• Gloateus Maximus says:

How about starting in 1850? Let’s see, about 0.7 degree C increase in GASTA (cooked books say one degree, but that’s totally bogus), with 115 ppm gain in CO2, or 0.006 degree C per ppm. That means that at 570 ppm projected for end of this century, earth should have warmed another one degree C. So 1.7 degree C in 250 years. Scary.

• Bellman,
Those trends seem pretty parallel to me. Interesting.
If one doesn’t concentrate on short-term noise, but on long-term physics, the world seems consistent.

• Gloateus Maximus says:

DC,
The last 20 years of rapidly rising CO2 and slightly falling GASTA are not noise. They are longer than the interval in which rising CO2 and slightly increasing GASTA allegedly coincided, ie roughly from 1978-96. That noisy period was preceded by 32 years in which GASTA plummeted while CO2 rose monotonously, ie 1945-77.

• Gloateus Maximus says:

And of course most of any warming since 1850 is natural. That from growth in beneficial CO2 is at best minimal and probably not measurable. But the exercise attributing all the welcome warmth to CO2 is instructive, IMO.

• Bellman says:

Bellman,
Those trends seem pretty parallel to me. Interesting.
If one doesn’t concentrate on short-term noise, but on long-term physics, the world seems consistent.

True, though I find it curious how similar the old UAH trend is to all the surface trends.

• Bellman says:

dcpetersen, sorry my previous comment was assuming you were talking about the UAH RSS trends I posted rather than the CO2 / RSS graph.
To be fair about the CO2 that was just me playing about with the scale until I found a match. I don’t think it makes much sense to use any scale unless you know how much warming you’d expect for a given increase, which as I understand it is still argued over. In any event the relationship should be logarithmic, and as you said CO2 is not the only thing affecting temperature.

• Bellman,

True, though I find it curious how similar the old UAH trend is to all the surface trends.

Indeed. It seems to have required some massive “adjustments” to the UAH data to make it “diverge” from the surface trends in recent years. These “adjustments” to the UAH data have had the effect of “cooling” recent years, so as to “reduce” the recent warming trend. Odd.

• Bellman says:

dcpetterson:

Indeed. It seems to have required some massive “adjustments” to the UAH data to make it “diverge” from the surface trends in recent years. These “adjustments” to the UAH data have had the effect of “cooling” recent years, so as to “reduce” the recent warming trend. Odd.

Maybe, but I wouldn’t want to imply there’s anything suspect about the adjustments. The new version does agree reasonably well with the RSS data. Hopefully the details of the beta version will be published soon and scrutinized those with more expertise than me.
I just find it amusing that some here seem to completely ignore the UAH adjustments, whilst holding any adjustment to surface data as evidence of fraud, and are even implying that any adjustments to RSS will also be suspect.

• It seems to have required some massive “adjustments” to the UAH data to make it “diverge” from the surface trends in recent years.

That is one perspective. The other is that UAH converged closer to RSS.

• Bellman says:
I don’t think it makes much sense to use any scale unless you know how much warming you’d expect for a given increase, which as I understand it is still argued over. In any event the relationship should be logarithmic, and as you said CO2 is not the only thing affecting temperature.
Correctomundo. The amount of AGW vs GW is being argued for the simple reason that there still aren’t any measurements of AGW. In their anti-science way, the alarmist crowd then assumes that the warming is man-made. The correct default position is the skeptics’ view: it’s natural unless it’s shown to be otherwise. See Occam’s Razor, the climate Null Hypothesis, the Scientific Method, etc.
(My usual disclaimer: I think AGW exists, based on simple radiative physics. But it is too small to measure with current instruments).
There are lots of charts showing exactly the same log relationship. This is just one:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
If you extrapolate from the current ≈400 ppm, out to 600, 800, or even 1200 ppm, you can see that any rise in global temperature would still be too small to measure.
Thus, the “carbon” scare is debunked.
Finally, Werner makes the point that RSS and UAH are converging. They are.

• Bellman says:

There are lots of charts showing exactly the same log relationship. This is just one:
If you extrapolate from the current ≈400 ppm, out to 600, 800, or even 1200 ppm, you can see that any rise in global temperature would still be too small to measure.

That chart is showing a sensitivity of less than 0.4C per doubling of CO2, which I think is a lot less than anything claimed, so naturally anything you extrapolate from it will be too small.

Finally, Werner makes the point that RSS and UAH are converging. They are.

No. What Warner was talking about UAH 6 being closer to RSS than UAH 5.6. What your graph shows is two diverging trends appearing to converge because they use different offsets. Here’s thegraph with UAH offset to a common baseline.

• Bellman says:
That chart is showing a sensitivity of less than 0.4C per doubling of CO2, which I think is a lot less than anything claimed, so naturally anything you extrapolate from it will be too small.
OK then, here’s a different source.
And here’s another one:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg
And here is yet another chart from a different source, showing the same thing:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H4t-NTW6ZRM/VrLRUfKoGfI/AAAAAAAAAlE/ne_iLO869Wk/s1600/CO2%2Bmarginal%2Btemperature%2Bincrease.png
As dcpetterson observes:
I think many of the people here dismiss data they don’t like, rather than consider what it actually means.
That’s what you’re doing, Bellman. I posted the relevant radiative physics charts showing the effect of CO2. But you don’t like it, so you assert otherwise.
Here on the internet’s ‘Best Science’ site, baseless assertions are no more than opinions. I posted verifiable facts. They demonstrate why there are no measurements of AGW, and why we don’t need to worry about any future rise in CO2.
Empirical observations verify that. You can’t accept it, for whatever reason. But unless you can produce replicable, testable, empirical measurements quantifying AGW, all you’re doing is making assertions that are not supported by the real world.

• Bellman says:

dbstealy:

And here is yet another chart from a different source, showing the same thing:
And here is yet another chart from a different source, showing the same thing:

I may be misunderstanding something, but those two charts are showing completely different things. The first has a temperature scale going up to 1.8 degreees C, whilst the second goes up to 14 degrees C. The second seems to be showing an order of magnitude more warming. It’s showing 3C warming for a doubling of CO2, whilst your first graph only showed 0.4C.

• Bellman says:

Sorry about the duplicated quote in the above comment, I was trying to copy the images, but was unsuccessful.

• Bellman,

Maybe, but I wouldn’t want to imply there’s anything suspect about the adjustments. The new version does agree reasonably well with the RSS data. Hopefully the details of the beta version will be published soon and scrutinized those with more expertise than me.
I just find it amusing that some here seem to completely ignore the UAH adjustments, whilst holding any adjustment to surface data as evidence of fraud, and are even implying that any adjustments to RSS will also be suspect.

I agree completely. My point was simply to underline the inconsistency of people who object to surface temperature data ostensibly on the basis of “adjustments,” but don’t object to the far more frequent adjustments that have been made to the UAH data.
For myself, I consider all the data to be valuable, and I don’t assign any dark motives to any of the data providers. Troposphere data and surface data measure two different things — the troposphere and the surface, respectively. I don’t expect them to react identically, or at the same rate, just as I don’t expect the Arctic and the Sahara to react the same. Both sets of data show long-term upward trends, so they are in general consistent anyway.
In contrast, I think many of the people here dismiss data they don’t like, rather than consider what it actually means.

• No. What Warner was talking about UAH 6 being closer to RSS than UAH 5.6.

Yes. And as a consequence, simultaneous plots of UAH6.0 and RSS should be more parallel than before. Unfortunately, this cannot be shown on WFT since it only shows 5.6.

• Bellman says:

Yes. And as a consequence, simultaneous plots of UAH6.0 and RSS should be more parallel than before. Unfortunately, this cannot be shown on WFT since it only shows 5.6.

Here’s my attempt at a comparison showing 12 month rolling averages:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32456227/uahcomparisons.png

• Bellman says:

I should have mentioned that all the anomalies in that graph are based on the period 1981 – 2010.

• Here’s my attempt at a comparison showing 12 month rolling averages:

It looks good to me! RSS and UAH6.0 are now very close.

• Werner Brozek February 12, 2016 at 6:44 am
It looks good to me! RSS and UAH6.0 are now very close.

Which is a problem because they aren’t the same product any more as shown at:
Phil. February 11, 2016 at 3:17 pm

• Which is a problem because they aren’t the same product any more as shown at:

Thank you! However I am not in a position to comment on the difference it would make to the long term trend. I know it is colder higher up, but would the slope necessarily change over the last 37 years for either trend?

• Werner Brozek February 13, 2016 at 7:05 am
“Which is a problem because they aren’t the same product any more as shown at:”
Thank you! However I am not in a position to comment on the difference it would make to the long term trend. I know it is colder higher up, but would the slope necessarily change over the last 37 years for either trend?

Not only is it colder higher up but it is cooling, so yes the slope will change.
The current method is said to be:
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS
As an illustration using RSS data which is available the new LT product (version 6) is close to RSS TTT which is calculated in a similar manner:
TTT=1.1*TMT – 0.1*TLS
TTT has a trend of 0.115, vs TMT trend of 0.081, TLS trend of -0.260 and TLT trend of 0.124 K/decade.
So it would be expected that the change in altitude weighting factors would lead to a reduction in trend from 0.124 to 0.115. Spencer said that the change in trend would be 0.140 to 0.114 some of which would be due to the diurnal correction.

• Not only is it colder higher up but it is cooling, so yes the slope will change.

Thank you! So it appears that we just have a strange coincidence that the numbers are now closer.

• Werner Brozek February 14, 2016 at 9:00 am
Thank you! So it appears that we just have a strange coincidence that the numbers are now closer.

Not necessarily a coincidence, it depends on how the parameters for calculating LT are chosen, obviously they could be chosen to match RSS.

87. @Gloateus Maximus
You seem to be assuming a) that there is a linear relationship with no feedbacks, and b) that only the data you like is valid.
I think we can all agree that by ignoring data one doesn’t like, and by imagining relationships without showing the physical processes behind those conjectures, anything at all can be proved or disproved.

• Gloateus Maximus says:

To which of my comments are you referring?
That showing that even bogus reconstructed temperature “data” don’t support a high ECS?

• Gloateus Maximus says:

If that’s to what you refer, it can be easily shown that present HadCRU, GISS and NOAA reconstructions are tendentious works of science fiction, by comparing them with reconstructions by the same agencies from the 1970s to ’90s.
But let’s do the same thing using BEST, an actual reconstruction by Mosher’s own Berkeley/Lawrence Livermore Labs. It shows a gain of less than 1.2 degrees C from AD 1850 to 2015 for combined land and sea GASTA. It’s bogus like all the other so-called “data sets”, but let’s go with it, for purposes of discussion.
http://berkeleyearth.org/land-and-ocean-data/
The gain from 1850 to about 1945 is around 0.5 degrees C. During that time, much of the CO2 gain was from naturally warming oceans, with relatively little added by human activity. CO2 climbed from about 285 ppm to an estimated 310 ppm or less during those 95 years. So, about 25 ppm, or 0.02 degree per ppm. Again, this CO2 gain would largely be from natural warming, ie an effect, not a cause.
https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/YR4GNVrNXWRtoTp0l1nH.w–/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NjAwO3E9OTU7dz00Nzg-/http://i60.servimg.com/u/f60/12/70/52/89/flux_c10.png
But in the next 70 years, ie 1946 to 2015, CO2 increased about 90 ppm, presumably due more to human activity than continued natural warming during recovery from the LIA. Using BEST’s bogus “data”, that means 0.7 degrees C during a monotonous increase in CO2 of 90 ppm, or .0078 degree per ppm. That implies that should CO2 reach double its AD 1850 level, ie 570 ppm, late in this century, we should expect a further warming of 1.3 degrees C (170 ppm x .0078 deg/ppm). Added to BEST’s bogus 1.2 degrees since AD 1850, that’s a total of only 2.5 degrees C warmer than at the end of the chilly LIA. That’s a good thing!
But in actuality, any such warming is almost sure to be much lower than this, since the planet is due for another cool period, as during the 32 years after WWII, despite rapidly rising CO2. And of course CO2 hasn’t been the main warming forcing since then anyway, as I’ve assumed in this example, for illustrative purposes.
Net feedbacks to more plant food in the air, such as water vapor, are almost sure to be negative not positive.
The GCMs show a linear relationship between CO2 and warming, so why shouldn’t I make that assumption?

• There are far too many unsupported assertions in your post for me to respond to them. As one example, you seem to assume we are “recovering” from the LIA, as if this a “recovery” is not already complete, and as if it was a global (rather than regional) effect. Nor have you furnished any mechanism for this imagined continuing “recovery.”
You also seem to assume that response to increased greenhouse gasses is instantaneous, that there is no lag between production of these gasses and the maximum degree of their effect.
You say “the planet is due for another cool period, as during the 32 years after WWII,” offering again no mechanism for this imagined effect.
That’s just the most obvious difficulties. Meanwhile, you’ve changed the topic away from Monckton’s cherry picking.

• Gloateus Maximus says:

DC,
Of course we are recovering from the LIA. That’s not an assertion but an observable fact. The warming from the end of the LIA c. AD 1850 to c. 1945 could not have been mainly driven by the small increase in CO2 during that interval, hence was indubitably natural in origin.
The recovery actually began during it, in the early 18th century, but was partially reversed by the cooling of the Dalton Minimum.
Each trend reversal is a recovery. Thus, the Medieval Warm Period was a natural recovery from the Dark Ages Cold Period and the LIA was a recovery from the MWP.

• Gloateus Maximus says:

And NB that despite lacking rapidly rising CO2 levels, the late 19th century and early 20th century warmings were virtually indistinguishable from the late 20th century warming, except possibly for the super El Nino of 1997-8.
For that matter, the early 18th century warming, recovering from the depths of the Maunder Minimum, was of greater amplitude and lasted longer than the the late 20th century warming.
Besides which, during the first 32 postwar years under rapidly rising CO2 levels, earth cooled dramatically, such that in the 1970s, scientists worried about the impending next big ice age.

88. dcp says:
There are far too many unsupported assertions in your post for me to respond to them.
Then: Qui tacet consentire videtur. Silence = consent.
Next:
…you seem to assume we are “recovering” from the LIA, as if this a “recovery” is not already complete, and as if it was a global (rather than regional) effect.
There is a mountain of evidence showing that both the MWP and the LIA were global events. And who are you to tell folks that the planet’s recovery from the LIA is now complete? How would you know that? You’re claiming that you have the ability to predict the future. Is that what you want readers to believe?
Next, you say:
You also seem to assume that response to increased greenhouse gasses is instantaneous, that there is no lag between production of these gasses and the maximum degree of their effect.
The *only* observed lag is the fact that changes in CO2 lag changes in temperature. In other words, changes in temperature cause subsequent changes in CO2. This is really basic.
Finally, you keep asserting ‘Monckton’s cherry picking’, which shows that you still don’t get it.

• dbstealey,
Still no theories about mechanisms to support your assertions. That’s okay, I know there aren’t any.

Finally, you keep asserting ‘Monckton’s cherry picking’, which shows that you still don’t get it.

Yeah. You’re right.
Jim, Phil, me, Bellman, Nick, we’ve all explained how Monckton’s cherry picking works, and several times too, Yet some continue somehow to deny the obvious. You’re right — I don’t get it.
Anyway, thanks for the conversation. We’re going in nonproductive circles. See ya another day.

• I see that dcpetterson has gone off in huff apparently as a goodbye, with:
“Jim, Phil, me, Bellman, Nick, we’ve all explained how Monckton’s cherry picking works, and several times too, Yet some continue somehow to deny the obvious. You’re right — I don’t get it… … see ya another day”
******Precious! Almost worth framing!******
I don’t think that all of those five commenters have denied that if you download the RSS data and do an OLS linear trend running back from end January 2016 for 18 years and 8 months, that the result is a zero slope. FACT!
They have a mixture of other obfuscations and some argue that shorter term trends can be found within that period that invalidate the 18,8-year trend. This is despite that some of them admit that such shorter trends have no statistical significance.
Yet, the very purpose of OLS linear trending is to iron out all those ups and downs throughout a time series (putting aside that the underlying trend might better be curvilinear as agreed by Jim).
Strangely, they seem to overlook that Chris Monckton confirms his start point of longest zero trend as being from the most recent month of available data and that next month (end February) ‘The Pause’ (zero trend) will probably end. Yet, they still accuse him of cherry picking the start and end points.
Another complaint is that the alleged cherry-pick deliberately takes in the 1998 El Nino, but they have not responded to advice given four times that the RSS average of the roughly four years that cover the full ENSO event (including La Nina) is below the average of the full 18,8 years! (The El Nino peak should not be separated from the full ENSO event).
I need an emoticon with head slowly shaking like the Centurions in the movie ‘Life of Brian’ (Jewish rebels fighting each other).

• Bellman says:

bobfj:

I don’t think that all of those five commenters have denied that if you download the RSS data and do an OLS linear trend running back from end January 2016 for 18 years and 8 months, that the result is a zero slope. FACT!

I haven’t denied it. That’s precisely the point we’ve been making (though I don’t understand why you insist on the trend running backwards).
If you run a trend from June 1997 to now you get a negative slope. The question is, why are you running a trend from that specific month? The answer is that the month has been chosen as the endpoint of the trend precisely because it is the earliest date that gives you a negative slope – and hence it has been cherry picked.

They have a mixture of other obfuscations and some argue that shorter term trends can be found within that period that invalidate the 18,8-year trend. This is despite that some of them admit that such shorter trends have no statistical significance.

The trouble is the 18 years 8 months trend has no statistical significance. The confidence interval for the Great Pause is around plus or minus 1.6C. Statistically it is indistinguishable from the trend leading up to the pause or the trend over the entire RSS history.

Yet, the very purpose of OLS linear trending is to iron out all those ups and downs throughout a time series (putting aside that the underlying trend might better be curvilinear as agreed by Jim).

Yet Monckton instists on starting a new trend line half way through the series. You don’t consider that the Pause might be one of those ups and downs that needs ironing out?

Strangely, they seem to overlook that Chris Monckton confirms his start point of longest zero trend as being from the most recent month of available data and that next month (end February) ‘The Pause’ (zero trend) will probably end. Yet, they still accuse him of cherry picking the start and end points.

I would say that having an entire 18 year pause disappear just because of one extra month of data demonstrates just how meaningless is Moncktons definition.

Another complaint is that the alleged cherry-pick deliberately takes in the 1998 El Nino, but they have not responded to advice given four times that the RSS average of the roughly four years that cover the full ENSO event (including La Nina) is below the average of the full 18,8 years! (The El Nino peak should not be separated from the full ENSO event).

Which illustrates just how warm this pause has been.

• I would say that having an entire 18 year pause disappear just because of one extra month of data demonstrates just how meaningless is Moncktons definition.

However even if the pause does disappear, the new slope in February may only be 0.0001/year from December 1997. That certainly would not be anything to be concerned about.
The period of statistically significant warming may be more appropriate then.

• Bellman says:

Werner Brozek:

However even if the pause does disappear, the new slope in February may only be 0.0001/year from December 1997. That certainly would not be anything to be concerned about.
The period of statistically significant warming may be more appropriate then.

That’s one of the points I’ve been trying to make. It’s meaningless to argue about the difference between a negative slope of a few hundredths of a degree per century and a rise of a few hundreds of a degree per century. Monckton’s definition of a pause is statistically meaningless.
Of course, you are probably right – when the pause disappears the argument will probably change to “there’s been no statistically significant warming in x years”, whilst ignoring the fact that there’s been no statistically significant pause over any time period.

• It’s meaningless to argue about the difference between a negative slope of a few hundredths of a degree per century and a rise of a few hundreds of a degree per century. Monckton’s definition of a pause is statistically meaningless.

I see your point. As for Monckton’s definition, most scientists will have some understanding of what “statistically significant” means, however most other people’s eyes just may glaze over when you mention “statistically significant”. So regardless what you may think of his definition, people understand “no warming” much better than “no statistically significant warming”.

• Bellman,
Thanks for providing continuing entertainment, although I doubt if there are many readers still around to share the laughs now that this thread heads towards the bottom of the main page.
Just a quick one though: Christopher Monckton has been running an update series of articles on The Pause, as and when new monthly data progressively becomes available. He has pledged to continue the series and concedes that February data “might at least shorten if not extinguish the Pause”. Thus, with each new article the starting datum is changed for the latest available full month of data.
I’m truly puzzled as to why you think that the concisely restrained start datum is cherry-picked. It caused me to look-up ‘cherry-pick’ in the MS Encarta online dictionary:
2. select only what you like; to sift through, e.g., evidence or options, selecting only what you like or what supports your strategy, plans, or preconceived notions
Any chance you could clarify your semantics?
Oh, and given the latest available data is the start datum, why do you profess difficulty that the no-warming trend runs backwards from that datum?
Oh and……………oh forget it

• Bellman says:

bobfj:

Thanks for providing continuing entertainment, although I doubt if there are many readers still around to share the laughs now that this thread heads towards the bottom of the main page.

Thanks, good to know my work is appreciated.

I’m truly puzzled as to why you think that the concisely restrained start datum is cherry-picked. It caused me to look-up ‘cherry-pick’ in the MS Encarta online dictionary:
2. select only what you like; to sift through, e.g., evidence or options, selecting only what you like or what supports your strategy, plans, or preconceived notions
Any chance you could clarify your semantics?

I could try, but if you cannot see why Monckton saying The hiatus period of 18 years 8 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. is the same as sifting through evidence, selecting only what supports your strategy, then I suspect anything I say is not going to help you. It’s either obvious to you or it’s not.
Let’s start by seeing if we agree how the pause is calculated by Monckton. I say it works like this:
Step 1: Start by setting a candidate month to the first month of the RSS data set (January 1979).
Step 2: Calculate the linear trend from the candidate month to the final month in the data (currently January 2016).
Step 3: See the direction of the slope calculated in step 2. If it is negative, stop. The candidate month is the start of the longest pause. If the slope is positive, move the candidate forward one month and go back to set 2.
(You could also do it starting with the most recent month as the candidate and working backwards, But in order to find the longest pause you won’t be able to complete the checking until you reach the start of the data set, so it will take longer to calculate.)
Assuming you accept that definition, what is the consequence of any pause you find?
Firstly, if this method can find a pause, it will find a pause. What this means in practice is that the date you state as the start of the pause will be date that has a negative trend. This is cherry picking because you’ve selected the start date specifically because it resulted in a negative trend. If you had chosen a start date at random you would have probably found a positive trend.
Secondly, the length of the said pause will be the longest possible such length. This is a cherry pick as you are using the length of the pause as the headline and so want it to be as long as possible.

• richardscourtney says:

Bellman:
You really are the joke that keeps on giving!
This laugh was one of your best

good to know my work is appreciated.

Copying nonsense from SkS is your idea of “work”! Brilliant! I am still laughing now.
Richard

• Richard,
I once had dealings with a Christadelphian family in South Australia. It included an extreme group who moved to the Adelaide Hills to escape the destruction that was to come to the evil city below on 1/January/2000.
Even the moderate ones (doing quite well amongst the heathen) had some rock solid opinions in the Old Testament. For instance, that the Earth is only about 6000 YO. I would point them to plastically folded rock visible in road cuttings, but they countered no, these are recent designs of God. Also, that the Grand Canyon was eroded in an alleged 40 day flood. I suggested that was a tad unlikely, and why nothing like it near Jerusalem etcetera…..again, no.
The comedy above is rather déjà vu.

• Bellman says:
…I don’t understand why you insist on the trend running backwards
Really? All real trends run ‘backward’. Really.
When they run forward they’re called predictions.

• Bellman says:

dbstealey:

Really? All real trends run ‘backward’. Really.
When they run forward they’re called predictions.

When someone discusses the trend between 1997 and 2015, I assume they mean the trend starting in 1997 and ending in 2015, rather than one starting in 2015 and ending in 1997.
Christopher Monckton seems to agree with my definition of where the trend starts when he says:
And yes, the start-date for the Pause has been inching forward, though just a little more slowly than the end-date, which is why the Pause has continued on average to lengthen.

• If little Timmy stopped growing when he was five years old, and now he’s ten, mom and dad would count back and say, “Timmy stopped growing when he was five!”
Same-same.

• Bellman says:

If little Timmy stopped growing when he was five years old, and now he’s ten, mom and dad would count back and say, “Timmy stopped growing when he was five!”

Well yes, but “stopped growing when he was five” means he started to stop growing at that age. They certainly wouldn’t say his pause in growing started when he was ten.

• Bellman,
This is becoming increasingly silly. Either you see things really differently, or you’re being disingenuous. I prefer to think you see it very differently from most people, so let’s just leave it at that. You believe what you want to, and I’ll continue to point out that for the past (whatever number of years), global warming has not been happening. It stopped. Or ‘paused’. Like most folks, I look back to the last time there was any measurable global warming.

89. Reply to Bellman’s 0932 am post above:
*Sigh*, every time some noob shows up with the same tired old talking points, we have to straighten them out.
Listen up, Bellman. That chart is an overlay. It does not show cause and effect.
The only charts anyone has ever posted here are either overlays, or they show the only verifiable causation:
∆CO2 is caused by ∆temperature.
Here’s just one example:
https://cyclesresearchinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/co2-temperature-roc.png
Got plenty more if you like. Just ask.
Next, @dcp, who asserts:
Still no theories about mechanisms to support your assertions. That’s okay, I know there aren’t any.
You don’t know nearly as much as you think you do. For example, you still don’t know that skeptics of a conjecture like CO2=cAGW have nothing to prove. But you do, and you’ve failed pretty miserably. Wake me when you can produce a measurement quantifying AGW. Until then, you’ve got nothin’ but hand-waving.

• Bellman says:

dbstealey:

The only charts anyone has ever posted here are either overlays, or they show the only verifiable causation:
∆CO2 is caused by ∆temperature.

Could you expand on that? Are you saying that all the rise in CO2 over the past century was caused by the rise in temperature?

• Are you saying that all the rise in CO2 over the past century was caused by the rise in temperature?

This is Werner Brozek responding. I just want to let you know that there is a huge controversy on this point. But this only applies to the last 150 years. Ferdinand Engelbeen believes that the whole rise from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is due to man. Many agree with that. Others say we either cannot know, or that temperature is a large part of it. Many posts have been devoted to this topic!

• Bellman says:

dbstealey :
I think the problem with that graph is that CO2 changes have been shifted down. In fact regardless of the small changes in the rate of increase, CO2 has been steadily increasing year on year. Here’s what it looks like if both deltas are given the same zero point:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32456227/co2delta.png
So, yes changes in temperature do affect the rate of the rise in CO2, the graph does not demonstrate what causes the steady rise in CO2.

• Bellman says:
Are you saying that all the rise in CO2 over the past century was caused by the rise in temperature?
No, I’m not saying that all the rise in CO2 is caused by the rise in global temperature (T). Nor am I saying that none of the rise in global T was caused by the rise in CO2. Human emissions are the likely cause of most, if not all of the rise in CO2. And yes, CO2 has a warming effect.
Almost all the warming effect from CO2 occurred within the first few dozen ppm. But at the current ≈400 ppm, CO2 has only a minuscule effect. Global warming from CO2 at current concentrations is too small to measure. Even if CO2 doubled from current concentrations, we still couldn’t measure the resulting warming. It would still be too small to measure.
On all time scales from years, to hundreds of millennia, the causation is clear: ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2. There are numerous data-based charts showing this cause and effect. Here are just a few:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif
On a multi-year scale, the WoodForTrees database shows the same causation: ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T.
Here is another chart showing the same cause and effect:
(Look at the “Note” in the center-left part of the chart. Click in charts to embiggen)
For years I have been asking for someone, anyone, to post a chart showing the opposite causation: that changes in CO2 cause changes in global T. But so far, no one has ever been able to produce such a chart. The only charts ever posted are overlays, which do not show cause and effect.
As stated, I think CO2 has a warming effect. But at current concentrations the warming is minuscule. It is certainly too small to measure, because there are no empirical, testable measurements of AGW.
I have more charts showing that changes in temperature cause subsequent changes in CO2. Ask if you’d like to see them.

• On a multi-year scale, the WoodForTrees database shows the same causation: ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T.

• Werner,
Different issue, different chart. That is an overlay, but the question wasn’t about cause and effect; there obviously is no measurable effect. That was my point.
The claim is that ∆CO2 will cause ∆temperature. That chart shows it doesn’t, at least not in any measurable way.
The only measurements available show that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T.

• The only measurements available show that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T.

My point is this, namely that chart shows two things,
∆CO2 is NOT caused by ∆T as well as that
∆T is NOT caused by ∆CO2.
The reason is that the temperature did NOT change, but CO2 went up.
But having said that, I agree with you that in general
some CO2 causes some temperature change and that
some temperature change causes some CO2 change.
However that chart is extremely strong evidence that Ferdinand Engelbeen is totally correct about the fact that over the last 150 years, human emissions are responsible for the great majority of the CO2 increase.

• Werner,
I’ve tried to be clear and consistent all along: I agree with Ferdinand Engelbeen. Human emissions are the primary cause of the rise in CO2. But human emissions only started with the Industrial Revolution. ∆CO2 is an anomaly, not a step change like the rise due to human emissions.
I also agree that CO2 causes some slight warming; but so slight that it hasn’t yet been measured. I’ve never said otherwise. And I agree with what Ferdinand Englebeen wrote about CO2 here:
“In my opinion even a doubling would have little impact, as clouds are a negative feedback (while all current GCM’s include clouds as a positive feedback!), thus a doubling of CO2 would have only moderate (and thus globally positive) effects.”
And that goes to the heart of the matter. The rise in CO2 has been harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Therefore, the alarmist crowd is wrong.

• Werner,
I’ve tried to be clear and consistent all along: I agree with Ferdinand Engelbeen. Human emissions are the primary cause of the rise in CO2.

GREAT!!!
But then you confuse me and others when you say this:

The only measurements available show that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T.

That last statement contradicts Ferdinand Engelbeen. Keep in mind we are just talking about the last 150 years. And of the 120 ppm increase since then, Ferdinand Engelbeen would attribute less than 10 ppm to rising ocean temperatures.

90. Bellman says:

dbstealey:

Almost all the warming effect from CO2 occurred within the first few dozen ppm. But at the current ≈400 ppm, CO2 has only a minuscule effect. Global warming from CO2 at current concentrations is too small to measure. Even if CO2 doubled from current concentrations, we still couldn’t measure the resulting warming. It would still be too small to measure.

Yet the chart you just posted showed a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase of 3C.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H4t-NTW6ZRM/VrLRUfKoGfI/AAAAAAAAAlE/ne_iLO869Wk/s1600/CO2%2Bmarginal%2Btemperature%2Bincrease.png

On all time scales from years, to hundreds of millennia, the causation is clear: ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2. There are numerous data-based charts showing this cause and effect. Here are just a few:

No argument from me about the causation over hundreds of millennia. But, obviously, we haven’t had an industrial revolution before, so wouldn’t expect to see a big increase in CO2 that wasn’t caused by changes in temperature.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif
Note that in the above graph the CO2 concentration never goes above 300ppm, even when the temperatures were 2 – 4C warmer than now.

• Yet the chart you just posted showed a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase of 3C.
From 400 ppm? No. And where are the charts showing that CO2 is the cause of temperature changes? That is the central belief of the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ religion. But there aren’t any measurements of AGW. So it’s just a belief, isn’t it? A conjecture.

• Bellman says:

Yet the chart you just posted showed a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase of 3C.
From 400 ppm? No.

Yes, from any value.
Maybe you are not understanding the chart, but it shows that an increase from 400 to 420 ppm increases temperature by 0.21C, then an increase to 440 ppm increases temperature by an additional 0.2C, so increasing from 400 to 440 ppm has a cumulative effect of raising temperatures by 0.41C. Increase CO2 to 460 adds another 0.19C.
By the time we reach the end of the chart we see an increase to 560 ppm would increase temperatures by 1.45C from where they were at 400 ppm. Extend this to 800 ppm, and the cumulative increase will be 3C. We know this because it’s a logarithmic chart showing a cumulative constant increase of 3C for each doubling of CO2.

• Maybe you are not understanding the chart, but it shows that an increase from 400 to 420 ppm increases temperature by 0.21C,

dbstealey, I am confused now as well. You posted two charts here that look the same, but that are out by an order of magnitude as Bellman says.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/06/the-pause-hangs-on-by-its-fingernails/#comment-2142944
The top chart has about 0.3 C at 40 ppm, but the bottom one has it clearly labeled as 3.00 C at 40 ppm. Which is right?

• Werner,
I also had never noticed that. They’re all slightly different, but that particular one is an outlier. Here, I’ll post all the charts I have that show the warming effect from CO2.
This one will not appear in the comment (because it’s not a .jpg, .gif, or .png), but you can click on it to see it.
Then there’s this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
And this one:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg
And another one:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H4t-NTW6ZRM/VrLRUfKoGfI/AAAAAAAAAlE/ne_iLO869Wk/s1600/CO2%2Bmarginal%2Btemperature%2Bincrease.png
The last chart was provided by our alarmist pal B. Gates, and he says it’s from the IPCC. So we can use that one if everyone agrees.
The point isn’t so much the scale, as the fact that almost all the warming takes place within the first few dozen ppm. Adding more CO2 to current levels doesn’t produce any measurable warming.

• Bellman says:
Note that in the above graph the CO2 concentration never goes above 300ppm, even when the temperatures were 2 – 4C warmer than now.
Why do you only go back 400K years ago? That’s convenient for your argument. But let’s go back farther; let’s look at the big picture:
The more we look at the claims that CO2 controls global temperature, the weaker that claim becomes. At this point, it’s merely a belief.
CO2 has risen by only one (1) part in 10,000 — over a century. That is what the alarmist contingent is hanging its hat on. That is the entire basis for the “carbon” scare. But as we see, CO2 has been more than fifteen times higher in the past, and without ever causing runaway global warming. Or any verified warming, for that matter.
After making alarming predictions that have been repeatedly debunked, any other branch of science would have abandoned the CO2-cAGW conjecture, which has been falsified over and over. Only in Climate Science™ do we find such ridiculous, self-serving beliefs.
After almost twenty years of no global warming, it’s time to admit that conjecture fails. Anyone taking out the emotion from the arguments is left with the fact that CO2 just does not do as claimed. But of course, religious beliefs are heavily emo-based, so the emotions can’t be taken out. So the alarmist cult simply bypasses the science. And here we are, arguing about a non-problem.

• The last chart was provided by our alarmist pal B. Gates, and he says it’s from the IPCC.

The first three charts were almost identical, but the last was way off. Looking at the increase in temperature expected from 280 ppm to 400 ppm from the last chart, I get 0.30 + 0.28 + 0.26 + 0.25 + 0.23 + 0.22 = 1.54 C. As we know, it only went up by 0.8 C. Furthermore, most of that 0.8 C was due to the fact that we came out of the LIA so the portion of the 0.8 due to our CO2 increase is way less than 0.8 C. So I would not use that last chart again. It assumes a climate sensitivity way higher than our Earth actually shows.

• Werner says:
I would not use that last chart again. It assumes a climate sensitivity way higher than our Earth actually shows.
You’re right, I should have been more suspicious when Gates posted it.
And as you point out, the real world is busy falsifying the whole CO2=AGW conjecture. Global warming stopped, so something is wrong with it. Something major.

• dbstealey February 12, 2016 at 8:35 pm
Bellman says:
Note that in the above graph the CO2 concentration never goes above 300ppm, even when the temperatures were 2 – 4C warmer than now.
Why do you only go back 400K years ago? That’s convenient for your argument. But let’s go back farther; let’s look at the big picture:
The more we look at the claims that CO2 controls global temperature, the weaker that claim becomes. At this point, it’s merely a belief.
CO2 has risen by only one (1) part in 10,000 — over a century. That is what the alarmist contingent is hanging its hat on. That is the entire basis for the “carbon” scare. But as we see, CO2 has been more than fifteen times higher in the past, and without ever causing runaway global warming. Or any verified warming, for that matter.

More stealey nonsense with ‘charts’, 500 Myears ago when that graph shows 8000 ppm CO2 the temperature was 14ºC above present! Notice the major drop in CO2 accompanying the development of land plants, then the Permian glaciations!

• Hey, Phil. is fixated on me! He keeps bird-dogging my comments from the anonymity of the peanut gallery. Back in your kennel, Phil. Good boy.
I keep pointing out the obvious, but A.C. Phil still doesn’t get it: that isn’t my chart. But it does make the point that CO2 is not the ‘control knob’ of the climate.
The A.C. cherry-picked one point in time to try and make his point (8000 ppm CO2 the temperature was 14ºC). Fail. As we see, there is no very long term correlation between CO2 and T:
http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
The alarmist crowd keeps posting overlay charts because they can’t find a chart that shows CO2 causing any global warming. That explains their constant deflection. Overlay charts do not show causation, all they show is coincidence.

• Bellman says:

Why do you only go back 400K years ago? That’s convenient for your argument.

Because that was the chart you posted.

CO2 has risen by only one (1) part in 10,000 — over a century.

Which is a rise in CO2 of over 30%. I’d be pretty worried if the CO in my room rose by one part in 10,000.

That is the entire basis for the “carbon” scare. But as we see, CO2 has been more than fifteen times higher in the past, and without ever causing runaway global warming. Or any verified warming, for that matter.

It was pretty hot 500 million years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
But the obvious issue with these comparisons is that lots of other things change over these time scales – including the sun getting warmer, changes in earths orbit, and continental drift – which makes any direct comparison difficult.

• dbstealey February 13, 2016 at 8:30 am
Hey, it’s the Anonymous Coward who’s fixated on me!

In your dreams! Firstly I post here under my name so I’m not anonymous, however if you choose to define ‘anonymity’ as not using one’s full name then of the four names you’ve used to post here two are anonymous and one was a pseudonym!
I keep pointing out the obvious, but A.C. Phil still doesn’t get it: that isn’t my chart. But it does make the point that CO2 is not the ‘control knob’ of the climate.
Never claimed it was ‘your’ chart, just the one you linked to.
The A.C. cherry-picked one point in time to try and make his point (8000 ppm CO2 the temperature was 14ºC). Fail.
That was your ‘cherry pick”, you said:
“But as we see, CO2 has been more than fifteen times higher in the past, and without ever causing runaway global warming. Or any verified warming, for that matter.
So looking at the high point you chose, 8000ppm, it’s coincident with the highest temperature, 14ºC above present. Yet according to you CO2 that high has never caused any verified warming, you do know what ‘ever’ means don’t you?
Back to the kennel puppy, you can’t hang with the big dogs.

• Firstly I post here under my name so I’m not anonymous…
That is not an honest answer. “Phil” is as anonymous as any other first name.

• dbstealey February 15, 2016 at 10:32 am
“Phil” is as anonymous as any other first name.

Like DBS, D Boehm and Smokey I guess?

• “Phil.”,
Many years ago when Anthony started referring to anonymous cowards who hide behind screen names, I got the message and began using my real name. Unlike you…

• “Many years ago”, as I recall it was August 2012, coincidentally ‘Smokey’ stopped posting here just after he accidentally linked to DBstealey’s gravatar! You returned to post anonymously as D Boehm but having been outed you were recognized and you ended the subterfuge and posted as DBoehm Stealey and eventually as dbstealey.

• Ah. The anonymous coward is being critical of someone who heard that term, and didn’t want to be associated with it.
And don’t flatter yourself, “”Phil””, no one ‘outed’ me. It was voluntary. If I didn’t want to be myself I’d just pick a new screen name. Maybe “Phil.”…

• dbstealey February 16, 2016 at 1:48 pm
Ah. The anonymous coward is being critical of someone who heard that term, and didn’t want to be associated with it.

Well you were happy enough for at least 6 years, since the phrase was in use here since at least 2006 and you posted as Smokey until 2012.
And don’t flatter yourself, “”Phil””, no one ‘outed’ me. It was voluntary. If I didn’t want to be myself I’d just pick a new screen name. Maybe “Phil.”…
As I pointed out you outed yourself by the mistaken link with your gravatar and immediately stopped posting as Smokey, you tried picking a screen name but it didn’t work because everyone knew it was you.

• …you outed yourself…
Correctomundo, “Phil”, but…
Wrong-O, “Phil”.
At the time, I didn’t even know what a gravatar was. I’m not on facebook, either.
I can keep this up as long as you can.
You can go back to cheating the taxpayers now.

• LOLOL!!
Anonymous coward “Phil” is keeping logs of my comments! He’s my entourage!
Get a life, puppy. ☺

• Running away with your tail between your legs puppy, you got caught out in your lies again.
No need to keep a log, it only takes about 5mins to find it.

• LOLOL!!
Since when have I ever run away? And from an anonymous coward like you?? That’s just your projection talking.
But I do love it that you’re spending your work time frantically researching my old comments. It’s good for my ego knowing I have an entourage of (1) one…
…who has to use my own insults. ☺

• Anonymous “Phil”, one thing I never do is lie, so that must be your ‘projection’ talking again. I make the occasional misteak, but lie? It’s not in my nature.
Go on back to cheating the taxpayers, that’s what you’re good at.

• [Stop the bun fight, both of you. -mod]

91. Bellman,
CO is not CO2. This is a science site. But I suppose that’s the best argument you can come up with, because the planet certainly isn’t supporting your CO2=CAGW conjecture.

92. Bellman says:

CO is not CO2.

Correct, but it does illustrate that a phrase like CO2 has risen by only one (1) part in 10,000 — over a century. has no relevance.
The charts you were discussing earlier show that temperature increases proportional to the logarithm of the CO2 increase, nothing to do with the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.

• Bellman,
You don’t like the 1 part in 10,000 because it shows just how insignificant the change has been.
You’re the guy who says a tiny rise in CO is dangerous; conflating CO with CO2. Now you’re claiming that 1 part in 10,000 is not a valid metric. Pick only the facts you like…

93. The Earth’s surface is in a warming trend, somewhat as predicted.
The stratosphere is in a cooling trend, as predicted.
So would not there be a “Goldilocks Layer” in between, with no trend at all?
Could that Goldilocks Layer be the middle troposphere? So “No warming there, forever.”

• Gloateus Maximus says:

The earth’s surface is not in a warming trend, as predicted.
Were the AGW hypothesis valid, the planet would have steadily warmed since CO2 took off after WWII. That is precisely what has not happened, all the while CO2 has risen monotonously. from 1945 to 1977, the world cooled dramatically. Then from 1978 to c. 1996, it warmed slightly, Then, from 1997 or so onward, GASTA has stayed flat or again cooled, but slightly. Thus, there is no correlation between steadily increasing CO2 and temperature. Earth has cooled, warmed and stayed the same during the past 70 years of steeply climbing CO2, but only for about 20 of those years was the rising gas associated with warming. By pure accident.

• Bellman says:

Were the AGW hypothesis valid, the planet would have steadily warmed since CO2 took off after WWII.

Unless there were factors that effected temperatures in addition to CO2.

• Or even facts that affected temperature…

94. Bellman says:
…a phrase like CO2 has risen by only one (1) part in 10,000 — over a century. has no relevance.

Sure, just pick the facts that you like, and reject the facts you don’t like.
Next, after giving some thought to Wernere’s comment, I think I see the problem. Everyone who puts together the log charts is in agreement; the effect is non-linear. In that respect, the charts all look the same, no matter who produces them.
The problem arises when they arbitrarily assign values to each bar. That’s because there is no agreement regarding the climate sensitivity number, which goes from 3ºC – 6+ºC, depending on who you ask, down to 3ºC, 2ºC, <1ºC, ±0.5ºC, and 0.0ºC (F. Miscolczi). And some argue that CO2 has a cooling effect.
So the sensitivity numbers are meaningless at this point (but if we had verifiable, testable measurements of AGW, we would start to get a handle on the sensitivity number, or at least narrow the range).
But since we don’t know the climate’s sensitivity to CO2, what we are left with is the chart itself. Everyone is in agreement with that part, since all the charts show the same thing: almost all the global warming occurred within the first few dozen ppm.
So we can discard all the fractional degrees at this point. They are nothing but speculation. Anyone can pick the numbers they want. That’s no good. Get rid of the numbers, they only generate pointless arguments.
We are left with real world observations, which indicate that the sensitivity at current CO2 concentrations must be very low: for almost twenty years there has been no global warming despite a large rise in CO2.
What do you think, Werner? Logically consistent?

• Everyone is in agreement with that part, since all the charts show the same thing: almost all the global warming occurred within the first few dozen ppm.
Werner? Logically consistent?

It is, but only if you think CO2 causes some warming at all.
But as you say

and 0.0ºC (F. Miscolczi)

He might not even agree with that.
Then you say

And some argue that CO2 has a cooling effect.

There is some evidence for that for Antarctica.
See:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
“We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.”
Is this cooling also logarithmic?? I have no clue! I just know it is bad and our fault.

• It’s probably not logarithmic, the logarithmic response in the lower atmosphere is due to spectral broadening, whereas at the altitudes where emissions from CO2 to space cause cooling the temperature and pressure gives significantly less broadening.

• Bellman says:

…a phrase like CO2 has risen by only one (1) part in 10,000 — over a century. has no relevance.
Sure, just pick the facts that you like, and reject the facts you don’t like.
The rest of your comment explains exactly why the 1 part on 10,000 is irrelevant. The effect of CO2 is logarithmic, that is for every doubling of CO2 there is expected to be a constant change in temperature. This is the case regardless of what starting point for CO2 you use.
Incidentally, if you think the rise is insignificant, does that also mean that the increased CO2 could not have been responsible for increasing plant growth?

The problem arises when they arbitrarily assign values to each bar. That’s because there is no agreement regarding the climate sensitivity number …

That’s what I’ve been trying to say, all those charts are only showing what would be expected to happen under a given sensitivity. You seemed to be arguing that because you had a chart showing would happen with a sensitivity of 0.3C then that proved the sensitivity was 0.3C.

The problem arises when they arbitrarily assign values to each bar. That’s because there is no agreement regarding the climate sensitivity number, which goes from 3ºC – 6+ºC, depending on who you ask, down to 3ºC, 2ºC, <1ºC, ±0.5ºC, and 0.0ºC (F. Miscolczi). And some argue that CO2 has a cooling effect.

Note that apart from Miscolczi none of those stated sensitivities is as low as the 0.3C you were claiming.

But since we don’t know the climate’s sensitivity to CO2, what we are left with is the chart itself. Everyone is in agreement with that part, since all the charts show the same thing: almost all the global warming occurred within the first few dozen ppm.

I’m still not sure I follow your point. More warming would result from rising CO2 from 0 to 300ppm, than from going from 300 to 600ppm, but so what? What matters is how much warming would result from that increase, and that’s just a function of the sensitivity. If by some good fortune the sensitivity is 0.3C, doubling CO2 would result in a rise of 0.3C. If it’s 1C temperatures rise by 1C, if it’s 3C temperatures rise by 3C.

• Bellman February 15, 2016 at 8:23 am
Note that apart from Miscolczi none of those stated sensitivities is as low as the 0.3C you were claiming.
“But since we don’t know the climate’s sensitivity to CO2, what we are left with is the chart itself. Everyone is in agreement with that part, since all the charts show the same thing: almost all the global warming occurred within the first few dozen ppm.”
I’m still not sure I follow your point. More warming would result from rising CO2 from 0 to 300ppm, than from going from 300 to 600ppm, but so what? What matters is how much warming would result from that increase, and that’s just a function of the sensitivity. If by some good fortune the sensitivity is 0.3C, doubling CO2 would result in a rise of 0.3C. If it’s 1C temperatures rise by 1C, if it’s 3C temperatures rise by 3C.
In fact using stealey’s last chart the first 20ppm caused 13º increase and another 12º came from the increase to 320 ppm.
“almost all the warming takes place within the first few dozen ppm”, I guess it depends on what ‘few’ means?

• Since there has been NO warming for the past 18+ years, sensitivity must be very low.

95. First, the warming that is supposed to put an end to the pause is only El Nino warming. El Ninos and La Ninas normally alternate because they are part of a giant wave motion from side to side in the Pacific.Whatever warming El Nino brings is the La Nina takes it right back.There are exceptions of course like the El Nino Modoki but by and large El Nino warming is not permanent.
Second, you want to know “…where the surface warming of the past 19 years has come from.” The answer is in this book by Peter Langdon Ward:
“What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse Gases or Ozone Depletion?”
It’s not the greenhouse gases, he says. His Figure 3.3 on page 37 is extremely persuasive of his argument. There are numerous other edxcellent graphs in the book, well planned and skilfully explained. You don’t have to agree with his thesis to profit from his artwork.If there is a typo or two you can step over them. The one most noticeable to me was the switch of wavelengths between visible red and blue colors. I am not finished with this book yet and will have more to say about it later.

96. Bellman says:
The effect of CO2 is logarithmic…
Anonymous ‘Phil.’ doesn’t agree with that, he says spectral broadening explains it. Also, I have never asserted that CO2 causes warming. I’ve always said that ‘I think’ it does. And I do. The problem is, there are no corroborating measurements. So the CO2=AGW belief is still just a conjecture. Certainly the real world is not acting as if CO2 causes global warming. There’s no difference in the rising temperature steps from recently, or from before the Industrial Revolution. Occam’s Razor, the Null Hypothesis, and the Scientific Method all lean against that conjecture.
Next, ‘Phil’ says:
…I guess it depends on what ‘few’ means?
No, it depends on what “almost all” means. Maybe a better term would be “most” of the warming happens within the first few dozen ppm. Also, there is no agreement on the climate sensitivity number, as I wrote. There’s no ‘consensus’, see? So the best course of action is to disregard the numbers under the bars on those charts. I gave a very good reson for that, too.

• Spectral broadening is what causes the effect to be logarithmic, in astronomy it’s referred to as the ‘curve of growth’, look it up. As for ‘a few dozen’, for your graph of 20 ppm increments, just over three dozen is a doubling of the 20 ppm value, just over 6 dozen is another doubling and just over 13 dozen is another doubling……….

97. barry says:

Monckton: “If one excludes the data after October 2015, which are temporarily influenced by the current el Niño spike in global temperatures…”
One might exclude the temporary influence of the 1997/98 el Nino to be consistent. How about starting and ending in an ENSO neutral year? That still fails to remove the influence of nearby ENSO event years, but is an improvement.
Of course, the more data, the more statistically sound. 25 years is a good minimum. 30 is better. When considering the uncertainty for the last 18-19 years in satellite data, it could be rapidly warming or cooling, or flat-lining, within the 95% confidence interval. Clearly not enough data to tell.

98. I just noticed that Bellman wrote:
That’s what I’ve been trying to say, all those charts are only showing what would be expected to happen under a given sensitivity.
OK then, we agree on that. Let’s just eliminate the fractional degrees below the chart bars. They’re only opinions anyway.
The relevant point is that most of the warming has already happened. That’s why even with the recent large rise in CO2, there’s been no global warming for many years.
I think there is AGW; I’ve never said anything else. But it has to be pretty minuscule, or the added CO2 would have pushed up global T. As the great Willis Eschenbach says, CO2 is only a 3rd order forcing, which is swamped by 2nd order forcings. Those, in turn, are swamped by 1st order forcings.
So the “carbon” scare is a false alarm. I’m perfectly willing to change my mind about that. But it would require measurements quantifying AGW, and as of now, there aren’t any. Because the effect is just too tiny.