# 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

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
February 6, 2016 9:26 am

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!

February 6, 2016 10:02 am

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

February 6, 2016 11:28 am

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?

February 6, 2016 11:37 am

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

Mike
February 6, 2016 12:21 pm

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
February 6, 2016 3:04 pm

Maybe his car is white?

Harry Twinotter
February 7, 2016 2:08 am

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
February 8, 2016 12:25 am

““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
February 6, 2016 1:15 pm

Long wave radiation from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

February 7, 2016 5:23 am

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

February 6, 2016 2:23 pm

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
February 6, 2016 3:30 pm

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.

February 6, 2016 9:31 am

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

li d
February 7, 2016 2:13 am

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
February 7, 2016 2:30 am

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?

February 6, 2016 9:37 am

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.

RH
February 6, 2016 9:37 am

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
February 7, 2016 2:37 am

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
February 7, 2016 4:23 pm

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.

Robert O
February 6, 2016 9:43 am

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.

February 6, 2016 10:48 am

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.

February 6, 2016 9:49 am

” 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
February 6, 2016 10:27 am

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.

February 6, 2016 10:43 am

“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
February 6, 2016 12:33 pm

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.

February 6, 2016 12:49 pm

“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
February 6, 2016 4:47 pm

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.

February 7, 2016 1:34 am

“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
February 6, 2016 10:54 am

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.

February 6, 2016 11:28 am

“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.

February 6, 2016 11:36 am

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
February 6, 2016 3:20 pm

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

FTOP_T
February 6, 2016 10:59 am

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. “

February 6, 2016 11:42 am

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:

macha
February 6, 2016 4:01 pm

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

Bartemis
February 6, 2016 12:34 pm

“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
February 6, 2016 12:36 pm

“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.

February 6, 2016 1:22 pm

” … 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
February 6, 2016 7:38 pm

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
February 6, 2016 9:02 pm

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
February 7, 2016 3:46 am

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.

Warren Latham
February 7, 2016 3:55 am

Here are some technical points regarding Catastrophic AGW …
https://youtu.be/4kib9asbp6s

David A
February 7, 2016 4:26 am

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?

February 6, 2016 9:50 am

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
February 7, 2016 12:40 pm

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.

February 6, 2016 9:51 am

“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.

tomwys1
February 6, 2016 9:52 am

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!!!

ossqss
February 6, 2016 9:53 am
Wim Röst
February 6, 2016 10:01 am

For now it looks like the trade winds are resuming their normal pattern: http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=212.73,0.75,486

ldd
February 6, 2016 10:21 am

O/T – or maybe not as El-nino may have an effect on this years PV.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-81.65,71.00,225
Cannot believe the above freezing temps I’m seeing at 10hPa. We’re leaking heat!! 🙂

Jean Meeus
February 6, 2016 10:28 am

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

Jean Meeus
February 6, 2016 10:29 am

Crrection: Co2 is cobalt!

Richard M
February 6, 2016 10:34 am

When one looks at the last few strong El Nino events we see they have all been followed by 1-3 years of La Nina conditions. Looks at 2010, 1998, 1988, 1983 and 1972. Only 1983 doesn’t have an immediate La Nina but it missed by only .2 C in one month.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
I think the chances for La Nina are over 90%.

Joe Born
February 6, 2016 10:55 am

“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
February 6, 2016 11:39 am

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
February 6, 2016 1:42 pm

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
February 6, 2016 1:55 pm

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.

February 6, 2016 8:10 pm

“(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
February 6, 2016 8:46 pm

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
February 7, 2016 12:30 am

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
February 7, 2016 12:46 am

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
February 6, 2016 12:46 pm

“…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
February 6, 2016 2:00 pm

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
February 6, 2016 2:19 pm

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
February 6, 2016 2:25 pm

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
February 6, 2016 8:19 pm

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
February 6, 2016 11:35 pm

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
February 7, 2016 4:29 am

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
February 7, 2016 4:17 am

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

scienceandpublicpolicy.org
February 7, 2016 10:33 am

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.

February 7, 2016 11:04 am

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
February 7, 2016 12:35 pm

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
February 7, 2016 12:25 pm

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
February 7, 2016 12:52 pm

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
February 7, 2016 3:23 pm

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
February 7, 2016 6:28 pm

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
February 7, 2016 7:36 pm

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
February 7, 2016 8:31 pm

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.

mwhite
February 6, 2016 11:05 am
mwhite
February 6, 2016 11:08 am

After the El Nino some cooling.

John Bills
February 6, 2016 11:11 am
richardscourtney
February 6, 2016 11:49 am

John Bills:
Please say where you obtained that 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.
Richard

John Bills
February 6, 2016 12:00 pm
February 6, 2016 12:12 pm

“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
February 6, 2016 12:21 pm

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

John Bills
February 6, 2016 12:30 pm

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.

John Bills
February 6, 2016 1:44 pm

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

Robert B
February 6, 2016 4:34 pm

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
February 7, 2016 12:09 am

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
February 6, 2016 12:45 pm

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
February 6, 2016 1:01 pm

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
February 6, 2016 3:29 pm

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
February 7, 2016 12:21 am

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
February 7, 2016 6:54 am

@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
February 9, 2016 1:43 am

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
February 7, 2016 12:57 am

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
February 7, 2016 12:58 am

fig. c

richardscourtney
February 7, 2016 6:06 am

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
February 7, 2016 7:46 am

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

richardscourtney
February 7, 2016 10:15 am

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
February 7, 2016 3:31 pm

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
February 9, 2016 4:24 am

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

February 6, 2016 11:17 am

Global Land Temperature trend can be reconstructed by adding CO2 to inverted (10 year delayed) LOD – length of the day variables in suitable proportions.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-GLT.gif
I did this couple of years ago (needs updating), see this alternative too

Bartemis
February 6, 2016 12:53 pm

Well, why not? It’s what they adjusted it to do!

Bartemis
February 6, 2016 1:07 pm
February 6, 2016 1:15 pm

I don’t think it is just their adjustments, here is another alternative
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTvsGD.gif
there is also a good correlation to the N. Atlantic tectonic records
So which one is it?
May be none of the above, There appears to be a terrestrially acting natural variability result of which is reflected in the all of the above variables.
One thing is for the certain, the CO2 happen to be the weakest and least effective of all of the above

DWR54
February 6, 2016 11:33 am

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
February 6, 2016 12:08 pm

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
February 6, 2016 12:56 pm

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

DWR54
February 7, 2016 1:41 am

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
February 7, 2016 5:46 am

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
February 10, 2016 4:13 am

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

February 6, 2016 11:35 am

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.

n.n
February 6, 2016 12:00 pm

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

Chris Hanley
February 6, 2016 12:07 pm

“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:

Crispin in Waterloo
February 6, 2016 12:14 pm

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.

TG
February 6, 2016 12:15 pm

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

Marcus
February 6, 2016 12:26 pm

Rising CO2 levels causing fish to get drunk ??? ROTFLMAO
University of NSW

Gary Pearse
February 6, 2016 6:47 pm

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.

bobfj
February 6, 2016 12:33 pm

“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
February 6, 2016 3:35 pm

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
February 7, 2016 2:32 am

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

bobfj
February 7, 2016 12:13 pm

Hairy,
I’m using the word ‘disappear’ figuratively to describe the fact that in older records, 1998 which was popularly described as a “Super El Nino” year stuck out like dog’s balls. Here for instance is the discontinued HadCrut3 to 2011:
And here to 2014.33 (WoodForTrees)
Gistemp is arguably most guilty of disappearing the former “Super El Nino” and elevating more recent El Ninos:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Harry Twinotter
February 7, 2016 9:47 pm

Bobfj.
The 1997/98 spike is clearly visible in the annual data. So either get your eyes checked, or just stop making things up.

bobfj
February 7, 2016 11:27 pm

Harry,
I think I replied out of sequence

bobfj
February 7, 2016 11:14 pm

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)

February 8, 2016 12:01 am

“Old Gistemp is not immediately available to me”
You can look on their news listing; there is usually an annual report in January; Here is the Jan 2011 one:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/509804main_GISS226X170.jpg
It’s very similar to the one you showed, if you stop after 2010.

bobfj
February 8, 2016 12:52 pm

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.

seaice1
February 6, 2016 12:35 pm

“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
February 6, 2016 12:41 pm

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

Steve Fraser
February 6, 2016 12:43 pm

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

February 6, 2016 12:47 pm

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
February 7, 2016 12:39 am

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.

Proud Skeptic
February 6, 2016 12:43 pm

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
February 6, 2016 1:02 pm

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.

February 6, 2016 10:05 pm

@ 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.

February 6, 2016 12:44 pm

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
February 7, 2016 2:28 am

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.

jsuther2013
February 6, 2016 1:21 pm

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
February 6, 2016 1:33 pm

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
February 6, 2016 3:18 pm

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

Tom in Florida
February 7, 2016 7:48 am

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

commieBob
February 7, 2016 9:41 am

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

Hoplite
February 6, 2016 1:25 pm

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

Eliza
February 6, 2016 1:25 pm

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

February 6, 2016 1:28 pm

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

February 6, 2016 1:35 pm

“The Pause hangs on by its fingernails”
Not necessarily, Global temperature pauses come and go, this one has another 20-30 years of life left.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CT4-pause.gif

February 6, 2016 1:42 pm

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..

Janice Moore
February 6, 2016 1:42 pm

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… 🙂 )

Bill H
February 6, 2016 1:50 pm

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
February 6, 2016 2:09 pm

“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
February 6, 2016 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.
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

February 6, 2016 8:28 pm

“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
February 6, 2016 9:06 pm

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

February 6, 2016 9:07 pm

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
February 6, 2016 2:37 pm

Nonsense.

Bill H
February 6, 2016 3:33 pm

Thanks for that well reasoned rebuttal of my arguments. Just what I would expect from a Sweet person.

Eliza
February 7, 2016 2:51 am

They and all here, especuially the warmistas, keep forgetting the other FOUR radiosonde balloon datadasets that support the THREE (one not shown below), satellites data. So its a TOTAL OF SEVEN datasets against all the failed models. http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Watch how there will be no reply from stokes ect

Janice Moore
February 6, 2016 4:19 pm

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
February 6, 2016 7:07 pm

Janice, you never fail to astound me !

Janice Moore
February 6, 2016 8:23 pm

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

February 6, 2016 10:14 pm

“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.

Janice Moore
February 6, 2016 1:51 pm

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

Birdynumnum
February 6, 2016 1:53 pm

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

Bill H
February 6, 2016 2:09 pm

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
February 6, 2016 2:13 pm

They agree quite well.

Bartemis
February 6, 2016 2:13 pm
Bill H
February 6, 2016 3:05 pm

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
February 6, 2016 3:39 pm

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.

February 6, 2016 3:57 pm

Try your plot with annual smoothing to take out the monthly noise

Robert B
February 6, 2016 5:27 pm

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.

Bartemis
February 6, 2016 9:59 pm

Nick Stokes February 6, 2016 at 3:57 pm
Meh.

February 8, 2016 5:34 am

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
February 6, 2016 5:51 pm

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”.

February 6, 2016 9:12 pm

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…

Barbara
February 6, 2016 2:25 pm

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

jorgekafkazar
February 6, 2016 2:29 pm

February 6, 2016 3:31 pm

“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
February 7, 2016 10:16 am

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.

February 7, 2016 11:29 am

“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.

belousov
February 6, 2016 3:39 pm

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
February 6, 2016 7:30 pm

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
February 7, 2016 2:14 am

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
February 7, 2016 7:08 am

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.”

FTOP_T
February 7, 2016 7:17 am

Tallbloke has a post on ARGO. First they corrected the data (2007) but it still showed cooling, and then they quietly “fixed” it (2011)
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/argo-the-mystery-of-global-warmings-missing-heat/

scienceandpublicpolicy.org
February 7, 2016 10:11 am

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
February 7, 2016 5:44 pm

well said belousov.

flearider
February 6, 2016 3:44 pm

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
February 12, 2016 2:01 am

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.

Neville
February 6, 2016 3:51 pm

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.

Peterg
February 6, 2016 4:04 pm

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
February 7, 2016 10:07 am

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.

Robert B
February 6, 2016 4:23 pm

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
February 7, 2016 10:09 am

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.

commieBob
February 6, 2016 4:35 pm

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
February 6, 2016 5:12 pm

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.

February 6, 2016 5:21 pm

“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.

Joseph Murphy
February 6, 2016 5:50 pm

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.

February 6, 2016 6:34 pm

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
February 7, 2016 9:08 am

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.

Richard M
February 6, 2016 6:04 pm

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
February 7, 2016 9:07 am

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.

February 7, 2016 11:48 am

“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.

Bellman
February 6, 2016 6:04 pm

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.

February 6, 2016 11:08 pm

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.

spaatch
February 6, 2016 6:24 pm
emsnews
February 6, 2016 7:25 pm

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.

Gary Pearse
February 6, 2016 7:31 pm

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
February 7, 2016 8:40 am

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.

February 6, 2016 10:07 pm

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
February 7, 2016 9:04 am

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.

Littleoil
February 6, 2016 10:26 pm

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
February 7, 2016 9:00 am

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.

dp
February 6, 2016 10:43 pm

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
February 7, 2016 8:58 am

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
February 7, 2016 11:31 am

A more shameless, hypocritical comment is not possible.

jim
February 7, 2016 12:22 pm

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
February 7, 2016 12:44 pm

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
February 7, 2016 2:45 pm

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:
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:
No honest analysis of any global temperature data set shows an 18 year pause in global warming .
That is a fact.

jim
February 7, 2016 2:49 pm

Unfortunately the image links above are broken:
Here is Monckton’s view
https://www.flickr.com/photos/138870749@N04/shares/GESZk1
And here is the continuous fit:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/138870749@N04/shares/cw906u

Bartemis
February 7, 2016 3:36 pm

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

John@EF
February 7, 2016 7:47 pm

@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.

February 7, 2016 7:52 pm

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
February 7, 2016 7:59 pm

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

John@EF
February 7, 2016 8:05 pm

@ 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.

February 7, 2016 8:11 pm

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
February 7, 2016 9:00 pm

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.

February 7, 2016 9:37 pm

“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.

François
February 7, 2016 12:38 am

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.

February 7, 2016 1:16 am
Bartemis
February 7, 2016 3:40 pm

“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”?

February 7, 2016 1:58 am
Harry Twinotter
February 7, 2016 2:03 am

“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
February 7, 2016 8:56 am

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
February 7, 2016 9:32 pm

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.

February 9, 2016 8:56 am

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.

Roy
February 7, 2016 3:11 am

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
February 7, 2016 8:52 am

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.

Russell
February 7, 2016 3:20 am

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
February 7, 2016 4:04 am

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”