Santa Pause may be coming to town… The "pause" might be back by December.

Guest post by David Middleton

A funny thing may have happened on the way to 2016 being the hottest year in the history of “life, the universe and everything”…

The RSS global temperature anomaly has been cooing at a rate of 1.6 °C /yr since February.

If the RSS global temperature anomaly continues to drop at its current rate, the pause will be back just in time for Christmas…

The RSS anomaly is currently on track to resume the pause by the end of this year.


Note: I am not predicting that the pause will return by the end of the year.  I’m just pointing out the fact that the most recent 5-month trend of the RSS anomaly will bring the pause back, if it continues through the end of the year.

Data downloaded from Wood For Trees.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 12, 2016 6:13 am

Wow, at that rate 2020 is going to be rough.

Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2016 7:32 am

The next ice age is coming!!! Oops, sorry that was Hansen in the 1970s.
Seriously, it will be colder on an average surface temperature basis as the AMO turns down. How much enthalpy the globe sheds will be determined on how long the downturn lasts and how weak the upturn is.

Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2016 9:38 am

If the RSS global temperature anomaly continues to drop at its current rate… which of course it won’t.
There is no more reason to suppose that ‘trend’ will continue any more than it was likely that the 1975-1995 ‘trend’ would continue into the next century. There is no reason to assume a linear rise respresents anything physically meaningful in climate.
Trends have NO predictive power and are for morons .
Most of climatology is obsessed with trends ….

Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2016 9:41 am

I expect that by the end of the year it will be back where it was in 2014 ie near the black line in figure 1 . For the next two years it will be slightly lower but probably not as low as 2000.

Bryan A
Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2016 10:08 am

seriously though, like other reports of Clouds shifting towards the poles, if the cooling does continue then the big chill could be bolstered by increasing precipitation in the polar regions causing more snowfall and increasing the likelihood of glaciation.
Global Warming = Ice Age onset.

Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2016 10:36 am

I can dig it

Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2016 11:36 am

we have to be fair to James Hansen…I read the article about Hansen. looks to me that his boss at NASA made the claim…Hansen (a neophyte at that time) was working on a new computer program to show that. So we don’t know exactly what Hansen believed at that time. Maybe we need to ask him.

Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2016 11:51 am

Looks like there is variation in temperatures, and in temperature trends.
That is not news – of course it is not!
Not news, either, is the need for academics to find sources of funding.
So many papers can be distilled to: –
“We can know more about this. Send money – now”
And that, too, is not news.
Yet Hansen – and others – seem to be treated as demi-gods by some of the press.
Auto, looking for Hubris to do its job!

Reply to  ChadB
July 12, 2016 10:41 am

Look at the ENSO regions. They should drop below -0.5C fairly soon…,1.35,497/loc=-146.414,0.601
I would bet on La Nina conditions of -1.5C to -1.75C by November.

Reply to  goldminor
July 12, 2016 4:05 pm

Cool interactive global sea surface temperature imagery. thanks.

george e. smith
Reply to  ChadB
July 12, 2016 11:00 am

Sounds a bit ” if-fie to me !
But given the 1998-2002 events, it seems that the climate system is not at all well damped ; which is not atypical of thermal systems, which have large propagation delays AKA phase shifts, that result in overshoots, and ringing.
Whatever causes El Ninos evidently happens quite sharply, and is somewhat disruptive, but then it all wrings out in about four years. You might say “It’ll all come out in the wash so she’ll be right Mate. Don’t sweat it. ”
So maybe we will get a nice White Christmas. Well that will be special for the folks back East, who think global warming had ended the age of snow.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
July 12, 2016 11:29 am

San Jose Murky News had a story this morning of a story in Washpost by Chris Mooney, a famous Climate Scientist, saying the clouds were shifting north and south to the poles.
Of course colder polar air is bound by the laws of thermo-dynamics to result in greater evaporation and atmospheric water content, than you can get in the hot tropical regions of the globe; specially those with a lot of oceanic water around.
Apparently the “study’s” lead author is a “climate scientist” at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, at UC San Diego.
Other workers on the “study” are from UC Riverside to represent the dry place, and Lawrence Livermore Nat Lab to represent the Government (AKA taxpayers) and also from Colorado State University to represent the climate effect of Marijuana.
Well you can find and read the paper for yourselves, I won’t bother expanding on Mooney’s “artist’s impression” of what he thought the scientists actually did.
Just what do you do, when you do a study ?
But the clouds are in different places from what they were 30 years ago.
Well 30 years ago, we had no idea where clouds were, unless they were overhead and within a few miles visible range.
The paper’s conclusions are based on a premise that clouds are always positive feedback.
And all this has been expected since play station simulations of the laws of physics told them so ages ago.
It’s hard to believe that clouds could move in just 30 years. The ones over me, don’t often move much; they just seem to come and go during the day, as in evaporate and condense.
Of course, WUWT regular readers, will remember that Stephen Wilde predicted years ago at WUWT, that clouds would move around and affect the amount of sunlight that can reach the deep oceans.
And his thoughts on that were thoroughly vetted ere on WUWT. I guess that would constitute “peer review “.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
July 12, 2016 12:07 pm

So I read from top to bottom.
And I read the Murky news before I fired up my computer this morning, so it came first. NO I didn’t buy it; never do, it was a freebie I recycled at McDonalds to do the Sudoku puzzle.

July 12, 2016 6:14 am

Call what you have done a model, use the words “the science says”, and apply for a generous grant.

Reply to  BallBounces
July 12, 2016 6:14 am

PS. Throw in a tree-ring somewhere.

Reply to  BallBounces
July 12, 2016 6:49 am

I always liked tree-ring toss.

Reply to  BallBounces
July 12, 2016 7:32 am

It always leafs me cold.

steven isiti
Reply to  BallBounces
July 12, 2016 8:54 am

“Tree Ring Circus”…there it’s fixed

Reply to  BallBounces
July 12, 2016 7:26 am

Don’t forget to use the weasel words “suggest”, “might” and “could possibly” to cover your back end just in case.

Bryan A
Reply to  Trebla
July 12, 2016 10:26 am

I like this one

“As good as could be expected considering the approximations made in the analysis.”

AKA … The error bars were too big to fit on the graph at the special resolution required to make the data appear menacing

Jim Butler
Reply to  BallBounces
July 12, 2016 8:16 am

You also have to use a bunch of “may”, “might”, and “could”s

Gary Pearse
July 12, 2016 6:20 am

Is their land-sea surface product tracking RSS satellite? Didn’t think so.

Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2016 6:46 am

1.7C per year! Time to cancel Paris. They have overshot the mark. Big time.

Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2016 9:49 am

That only means that adjustments are imminent.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 12, 2016 7:44 am

They will always have Paris.

July 12, 2016 6:24 am

You know David….you really shouldn’t be tipping them off that they need to start adjusting

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Washington
July 12, 2016 6:41 am

That’s a rather Mark Twainish prediction you have there. One day the Mississippi will only be 1-1/2 miles long and the next, the delta will stretch to England.
Methinks reality lieth between.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Washington
July 12, 2016 6:48 am

“reality lieth” – isn’t that the CAGW motto?

Reply to  JohnWho
July 12, 2016 7:09 am

Yes, “reality lies”, with a lisp.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Washington
July 12, 2016 8:17 am

Tell that to the AGW’ers. For them projections go way beyond known swings seen in proxy data over the past 800,000 years. Skeptics tend to stay within known oscillations, since there is nothing unusual about today’s climate. The projected downturn in temps is within natural variation, so why not?
As for Mark Twain, his commentary was hyperbole at its finest. It was meant to flavor the discussion, not be the discussion.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 12, 2016 8:12 pm

Pamela – you are right about there being nothing unusual about today’s climate. What is lacking mainly is people’s comprehension of what a global temperature chart tells us. I will try to explain this by using the second graph in this article as a guide. It is an RSS satellite graph for the period from the 1998 super El,Nino to the 2016 El Nino. You will note that the twenty-first century graph begins with a temperature rise starting from the bottom of the 1999 La Nina. When the warming eventually stops in 2002 it will have raised the twenty-first century temperature by one third of a degree Celsius in only three years. This warming cannot be a greenhouse warming because to start one from scratch you must add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which did not happen. Likewise, you cannot stop greenhouse warming unless you pluck all of the absorbing CO2 molecules out of the air – an impossibility in our case. This leaves only one possible cause for the warming – a mass of warm water carried across the ocean by the super El Nino of 1998. It raises all twenty-first century temperatures above those of the twentieth century ones, except for 1998. As a result, we have numerous “warmer than ever” temperatures scattered across the current century. Hansen noticed that nine out of ten warmest years of the first decade of this century were warmer than any twentieth century values. He attributed it all to the greenhouse effect (what else could an ignoramus do?). To make comparison between twentieth and twenty-first century temperatures you must first subtract this extra warming from the twenty-first century data. If this is done the two centuries are approximately the same. The first part of the twenty-first century warming is almost horizontal and fits in with the existence of a hiatus. During a hiatus atmospheric carbon dioxide keeps increasing but temperature does not. This, however, is not allowed by the Arrhenius greenhouse theory used by the IPCC. Since Arrhenius here makes a wrong prediction it must be invalidated and cast into the waste basket of history. The only greenhouse theory that can correctly handle hiatus is MGT, the Miskolczi greenhouse theory. That is because MGT can simultaneously use the IR absorbance of both carbon dioxide and water vapor to make predictions. Water vapor constitutes 95 percent of all greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere but Arrhenius completely ignores it. MGT predicts what we observe during a hiatus: carbon dioxide increases but temperature does not. Since the twenty-first century temperature increase is caused by warm water at the beginning of the century and replenishment of it is not possible it follows that over time this raised temperature mist decrease as the water mass cools. This was not obvious in the beginning but after more than ten years of observations this cooling has become noticeable. Between the years 2002 and 2012 (a decade) global temperature has declined by approximately 0.14 degrees Celsius according to the RSS temperature graph referred to. That is a negative slope of -0.14 degrees Celsius per decade. Beyond 2012 the warming that will create the 2016 El Nino takes over. But if we extrapolate the negative slope beyond the 2016 El Nino period the eventual temperature reached will be low enough to continue that “pause” or ”hiatus” or whatever Karl tried to deny with his bogus temperature curve.

Bill Illis
July 12, 2016 6:48 am

David Middleton is right here although the estimated RSS global mean temps will probably be closer to 0.1C.
The lower troposphere temps of June 2016 are still responding to the moderate El Nino of 3 months ago when the Nino 3.4 index was +1.68C
When January, February 2017 RSS temps come out, they will be responding to a moderate La Nina of around -1.0C or so from November 2016.
From the June 2016 RSS Global temps of +0.467C, we should a decline of about 0.4C by January, February 2017 just based on the ENSO changes. The RSS Tropics, however, will be in the negative.
Lower troposphere temps versus the ENSO going back to 1958 and then extended out to February based on a moderate La Nina.comment image

Bruce Cobb
July 12, 2016 7:02 am

Even now, the sneaky heat is getting ready to dive into the deep oceans. Also, volcanoes are beginning to rev up, and China and other dirty countries are preparing to ramp up emissions of aerosols. It’s actually pretty amazing how it all comes together.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 12, 2016 9:35 am

So when global temperature plunges like that, what is the thing becoming toasty hot as all the heat is stored there? And how does the heat move from cold polar zones into that hot place?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 12, 2016 12:25 pm

It’s through a little-known, complex process called transubwarmanation.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 13, 2016 2:12 pm

I believe what happens in an El Nino, is the normal rotation of the ocean water through the pacific is disrupted due to a change in wind. Normally with cooperative wind, the water flows clockwise in the north pacific, and due to Coriolis effect, tends to pull away from the coast lines, this causes an up-welling effect, which brings cold water from way below up to the surface creating a cooler ocean. When the rotation slows, the up-welling effect goes down, causing the oceans to warm up. The up-welling also brings up- nutrients from down below which help small organisms/plankton/krill and seaweed grow. Without the up-welling the small organisms are reduced significantly which causes problems throughout the food chain. This is why we frequently see organism die offs during an El Nino. Not enough food is available for all the critters.

July 12, 2016 7:16 am

Amazing that people seem so concerned that the graph will show warming when we currently live in an Ice Age interglacial that’s hundreds of years overdue to end. Come on! Global Warming is good. The pause is bad. And global cooling is worse.
Just think about it. A drop of global temperature of -2C could send us into another “Little Ice Age” of the current real Ice Age that never ended. Calling this interglacial a special name doesn’t mean the Pleistocene Ice Age magically ended and melted the polar ice. A drop of -5C could return us to full glacial climate.
On the flip side, a warming of +5C could give us balmy weather like that of the Eemian 100,000+ years ago, when polar bears likely had zero ice to climb onto. Holding a +5C raise in global temperatures might eventually end the current Ice Age. Woo Hoo! Then we would have lots of extra land, North and South, to replace the land lost from rising sea levels. Storms might disappear (very little thermal potential). Rain would increase, making some deserts green like the Sahara was 8,000 years ago. And with increasing CO2, plants might no longer feel stressed from the CO2 starvation which made them evolve C4 species 30 million years ago, when levels had dropped to 800 ppm.

Reply to  Rod Martin Jr
July 12, 2016 7:37 am

Thanks for the big picture with a realistic long term perspective on climate.
But then again if the Government took a long range look they could not take over energy use and would have to worry about terrorism.

Reply to  Rod Martin Jr
July 12, 2016 8:29 am

Rod, according to Ralph Ellis, the next potential for a new ice age is in 70k years, and again in 180k years. If correct, we don’t have to worry too much about cooling just yet.

Ian W
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
July 12, 2016 9:24 am

Just watch for a Bond Event – there’s no need for a full on drop out of this Interglacial. A hundred years or so 3C- 4C cooler would be salutary and may reduce the hubris.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
July 14, 2016 12:05 am

Would be nice! But regrettably we still don’t know enough about what causes interglacials to end. (And BTW, we ARE in an Ice Age as evidenced by those 2 little white things which persist through the year at the poles.) It may end up being one of those chaos effects which depend on whether or not you walk a little faster down the sidewalk tomorrow morning. Yikes! Or a butterfly flapping its wings. I would hope we could have more stable and predictable impact on climate.
Based on climate graphs of the last few hundred thousand years, no interglacial has lasted more than 28ka. Our production of dust, smog, persistent jet trails and such may plunge us into another glacial starting later this afternoon, especially with the sun losing its spots. Who knows?
But it would prove far better if we simply pooled our resources and ended the current Ice Age altogether. The benefits far outweigh the detriments. It might end all violent storms, shrink deserts, reduce droughts, and open up lots of real estate that’s now either frozen or marginal.
There’s no doubt that we still have a great deal to learn. 70 ka to the next glacial? I could live with that, but it would be a stretch, based on the past record.

July 12, 2016 7:33 am

Even if it doesn’t drop so much, if it stays below (eyeballing) +0.22 long enough, arguably “the pause” won’t simply be back, it will be continuing.

July 12, 2016 7:37 am

Of interest, the continental US surface temperature has been in a pause since the mid 1980’s, about the time Hansen predicted doom. Perhaps the US climate reference network, working for the past 10+ years, is constraining the data adjusters because its measurements cannot be adjusted – hence no increase. See

July 12, 2016 7:41 am

The projection is that the global temperature will continue to drop like a stone. We’ll see. The NINO3.4 SST had been dropping very fast but has slowed down over the last few weeks.

Bruce Cobb
July 12, 2016 7:55 am

Warmies better watch out
They’d better not cry
They better not pout…

July 12, 2016 7:55 am


July 12, 2016 8:07 am

Can’t we call it something besides a “pause”? That implies one believes the temperatures will increase again, as the warmists contend. How about plateau? That’s more accurate and does not indicate any direction for future temperaures.

Reply to  Reality check
July 12, 2016 9:38 am

The correct word is “halt”. Motion that stops is halted. It can only be a “pause” in retrospect when motion resumes.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 12, 2016 11:42 am

Our knowledge about possible future events is a bit too limited to call it pause, halt, hiatus, plateau, peak, etc.
Cars are easier – if one stops at a stop sign, you can predict it is only paused, not halted for the next decade.

george e. smith
Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 12, 2016 11:50 am

A stop sign is a signal to stop. It is not an instruction to pause, and if you pause for no reason, you are just holding up traffic, and wasting even more energy than you did just by stopping.

Wim Röst
Reply to  Reality check
July 12, 2016 9:41 am

Reality check: “Can’t we call it something besides a “pause”?”
“The New Level Temperatures” or “2000 Temperatures”? This suggests something like a 20th century temperature, but leaves the possibility of upward and downward future trends.

Reply to  Wim Röst
July 12, 2016 5:19 pm

I can go with “The New Level Temperatures”. It’s descriptive and as you say, does not suggest an up or down change in the future.

Reply to  Wim Röst
July 12, 2016 10:27 pm

Reality check: “Can’t we call it something besides a “pause”?”
I suggest “neutral warming”. That way we can keep on claiming that the world is undergoing catastrophic warming, just with shifts between normal warming and neutral warming. And perhaps some occasional negative warming, when the ice begins to form around the Equator. But still warming.

Wim Röst
Reply to  Wim Röst
July 13, 2016 1:39 am

typo: meant: 21st century temperature

george e. smith
Reply to  Reality check
July 12, 2016 11:47 am

Not so. A pause is a stop. it might be the top of a mountain, so it could be followed by lower Temperatures, or by higher temperatures or it could just stay stopped.
Does it seem logical to readers that the place to look for higher altitudes on earth would be somewhere up in the mountains. That is generally where you find higher altitudes.
And when you are on top of a mountain, you tend to be surrounded by places that are also at high altitudes. So since we climbed out of the frozen wastes of the early 1970s into the era of global warming, which reached its summit some 18 years and nine months or so ago circa 1997/98, then we would expect to have the highest temperatures in living memory for most of the last two decades.
With all of the GISSTemp depressing of the past going on, there are not too many people left who remember how darn hot it was in the 1930s, so they think todays plateau of high Temperatures, is special, like the overturning of Hell.
I will predict that at some time in the future we will reach the bottom of a canyon of Temperature, and for decades, we will be surrounded by some of the coldest temperatures in living memory, which tend to cluster down in the valleys.
Who knew ?

Reply to  Reality check
July 13, 2016 12:54 am

>>Can’t we call it something besides a “pause”?
Indeed, ‘plateau’ would be much better, as that suggests an imminent fall…

Robert from oz
Reply to  ralfellis
July 13, 2016 5:01 am

How about ” the warming is becoming more acidic”.

July 12, 2016 8:10 am

Solar activity is dropping rapidly and will contribute to the downward temperature trend. Solar cycle 25 may start sooner than predicted and be very unusual!

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Katana
July 12, 2016 8:22 am

Popping up in “whack a mole” style to spout the solar party line lends no credence to solar discussions (just as CO2 style comments lends no credence to the greenhouse discussion). It’s a science blog for heaven’s sake. Put some science in your comments.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 12, 2016 9:16 am

Northern hemisphere cooling a la 2009 is not unreasonable with the solar minimum, but maybe more likely in 2018

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 12, 2016 10:53 am

Again, your comment is entirely without plausible mechanism and a link to current peer reviewed research. Try again.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 12, 2016 11:52 am

The regional response is the interesting part.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 12, 2016 5:48 pm

Hmmm. The paper you linked to relies on Lockwood’s old solar reconstruction that has since been recalibrated to remove discontinuities in SSN counting methods. In addition, the study “models” idealized solar measurements. This seems like a method to publish something solar related when the current solar data hasn’t been around long enough to determine whether or not there is a correlation. In summary: this is a very weak models all the way study with several references that are no longer reflective of current solar data.

M Seward
July 12, 2016 8:13 am

In Tasmania we had a huge downpour in late May, the same system caused torrential rain and snow even from SE Queensland all the way down here, and ‘broke the drought’ we had being having ( well not really a drought, just a dryer than average spell.
So you know what its doing again? Its pissing down again! Its snowing down to 200 metres – again! We are having a ‘normal’ winter!!! I think it is outrageous!! The UN has banned such weather and all the Xspurts agree it would never happen again.
As Pauline Hanson would say, “Please explain?”
LOL. It just gets better. A rather entertaining prime minister of ours once skewered his opponent in the parliament with the mother of all comebacks. When challenged to go to an early election if he was so sure of himself he retorted to the effect, ‘nah mate, I want to do you slowly!’ Methinks Gaia has similar plans for the CAGWarmists. The 20 teens might well be interesting times. Popcorn futures look good.

Reply to  M Seward
July 12, 2016 8:50 am

Ski areas in Montana are receiving snow in July!

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
July 12, 2016 8:52 am

snow = weather. Heat = climate

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
July 12, 2016 5:21 pm

Yes, and last year it snowed in Jackson in July, also. It’s really not that unusual. Of course, the media still ignores it because if you mention snow in July, people laugh at “global warming” and it hurts their feelings.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
July 12, 2016 5:54 pm

In the late 70’s it snowed in Wallowa County, Oregon at 3200 feet elevation.

King of Cool
Reply to  M Seward
July 12, 2016 2:00 pm

Jolly ski poles! It’s school holidays in NSW and lots of kids are going to find out what snow is with mountains of snow at Thredbo and 40 cms from top to bottom across the village.
The media is calling it “extreme weather” and a “polar blast ” but when we were kids we used to think is was just called winter.

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  M Seward
July 13, 2016 12:20 am

nawming = normal/neutral/negative warming

July 12, 2016 8:14 am

My guess is that RSS will not drop all the way to -0.3.
On a funny(er) side, isn’t if funny that all this hoopla is over 1°C. Last week we had some very unstable weather. Cycling between thunder showers and warm sun several times a day. The temperature continuously varied by about 8°C. But a 1°C change in global average, and the end is nigh?

george e. smith
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
July 12, 2016 11:54 am

Glad you did say guess. Any guess is as good as any other; sheer dart throwing.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
July 12, 2016 1:05 pm

Did you miss a place in your numbers? The 7 day high at my place 2+ hours northwest of you was 29. The 7 day low was 7. A difference of 18 degrees C not 8. But perhaps you are in the City so maybe it makes a difference. I often see that much or more in a day. But yes, 1 degree average change is really scary. (do I need the sarc tag?)

July 12, 2016 8:21 am

ah yes. the same logic that People used to predict an ice free arctic.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2016 12:55 pm

No – the ‘ice-free arctic’ is wild, alarmist, exaggeration. Middleton suggests that if patterns follow their current course we should be entering into a cooler period this winter. Whether he’s right or not, it’s not the same thing.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 12, 2016 1:13 pm

We will know its the same logic or not, by what happens.
Logic that is proven by reality is obvious way above the logic of missing the side of a barn.

July 12, 2016 8:26 am

After the long drought and mild winters in Mediterranean climate South Oz, we’ve forgotten what sort of cold weather creates those long term averages everyone’s so fond of quoting-
Seems Mother Nature wagged statistics classes.

July 12, 2016 8:43 am

I’m not quite sure about the content of the article. It’s a trend-extrapolation of a 5 month trend? This would be not too much… 🙂

July 12, 2016 8:53 am

Great send-up of Monckton’s technique, though I’m not sure if there will be any strictly negative trend by December, so it wouldn’t technically count as a Great Pause.
Interesting that even if RSS drops at the rate projected here – it will still have been warming at over 2 °C / Century since 2008.

Mr GrimNasty
Reply to  Bellman
July 12, 2016 9:14 am

Between 6 this morning and noon, my garden warmed at 1.5 million deg. C a century.

Reply to  Mr GrimNasty
July 12, 2016 11:43 am

How are the tomatoes holding up?

Mr GrimNasty
Reply to  Mr GrimNasty
July 12, 2016 1:24 pm

Struggling in the cold and wet – but the data says they should be roasted!

bit chilly
Reply to  Mr GrimNasty
July 12, 2016 5:53 pm

roflmao , tremendously funny put down mr gm. top work.

David A
Reply to  Bellman
July 12, 2016 11:28 am

No need to go negative for the pause from 97 to resume.

Reply to  David A
July 12, 2016 11:50 am

No need to go negative for the pause from 97 to resume.

Of course not, you can define a pause any way you want. But Christopher Monckton defines it as the the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

Reply to  David A
July 12, 2016 4:25 pm

Also, “the pause” of 18 plus years will always be there.
Whether what ended it is a warming trend or a cooling trend is yet to be determined, as is the question of whether we simply had a spike and are returning to the pauses’ flat trend.

July 12, 2016 8:54 am

Give it a rest for the next 18 months.

July 12, 2016 9:13 am

So will the solar minimum and further downturn in the AMO long cycle

Claude Harvey
July 12, 2016 9:17 am

AGW 101 Definitions:
1) “natural variability” – any downward movement of global average temperature
2) “man-made CO2 temperature forcing” – any upward movement of global average temperature
Armed with these two working definitions, AGW theory is impervious to attack from any quarter. You’re all howling at the moon!

Bruce Cobb
July 12, 2016 9:46 am

We need to all just stop,
It’s Warmertime.comment image
Can’t touch this.

Rob Dawg
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 12, 2016 10:01 am

> “Can’t touch this.”
Just remember tree rings record climate not temperature. The tree rings are saying the climate is getting better.

July 12, 2016 10:07 am

You may well be right in estimating that the pause might return.
I have taken the time to analyzed many of the datasets. The figure furnished below is my latest effort in analyzing the most recent RSS data. I do this with and without a contribution from CO2. For a fairly precise match to the measurements I do not really need a contribution from CO2.
However, I can accommodate a contribution from CO2 and still get a precise match to the measurements. With the limited range of the data only going back to 1980 I don’t trust the projection of anomalies beyond what has been measured as having much in the way of fidelity. The correlation with the measured data you see below is 0.94 and the sum of the squares error for the figure is only 2.78. The ECS is only 0.15.!AkPliAI0REKh_S4qJF0Taiygt1i3
In getting to the RSS value you have estimated it may be required that the El Nino be followed by a La Nina as occurred following the 97-98 El Nino.
Using the analysis procedures, I used in analyzing the RSS data I have also analyzed each of the four Nino regions. I will furnish the results from one of them, Region 3.4.
For these regions the data go back to 1854. With that longer period of time I feel more secure in making projections. The raw data I have analyzed are the monthly data from 1854 to 2014 then followed by daily data thereafter. The overall correlation coefficient for this extensive dataset is 0.93. For the more recent data that goes back to 1996 the correlation coefficient is 0.95. In the figure you will see the La Nina that followed the El Nino in 97-98. The cyclic analysis also captures it as well.!AkPliAI0REKh_S_NQyYETzpbNiAQ
My use of daily data are plain to see in the figure.
In this instance projections are in order. Presently, a La Nina is not indicated.!AkPliAI0REKh_TAafTKKtsfVhfo0
More data are required to make final determination of which way this will go. Perhaps, another month or so of daily data will make it clear.
In the figure below you will sense how the analysis has changed with the available data. The adjustment may soon be through.!AkPliAI0REKh_TFnyebot4VMALmL
We shall see.

Reply to  charplum
July 12, 2016 10:38 am

“In this instance projections are in order. Presently, a La Nina is not indicated.”
Your chart of Nino 3.4 indicates going right back into an El Nino at least as large as the one just ended.
One might suggest that your cyclic analysis is descriptive but not very predictive.
A description of your cyclic analysis might prove interesting.

Reply to  TonyL
July 12, 2016 11:54 am

With regard to the analysis I use I start off with the Optimal Fourier Transform (OFT) developed by Dr. Evans. It is in the form of a spreadsheet. You can download the spreadsheet here.
It can be found under the “Transform Lab” tab. I usually specify 90 cycles and then wait for the results. I then take those results as inputs and use a Marquardt procedure to minimize the sum of the squares. With 90 cycles there are 270 resulting guesses. After working with this method for a while now I have come to appreciate it. What I documented in my comment is this method applied to two different datasets.
With regard to my results it may or may not be predictive. I am hopeful that with another 30 days worth of daily data things might be made clear.
In my last chart I showed how the analysis changed as newer data were acquired. I expect the same to happen on the way up, if that happens. In this instance, I expect the height of the peak will be tempered as more data are included.
I have looked at some historical data and maybe this is the only thing that is close.
Between 1200 – 1400 there are a succession of events that standout.
I too am waiting to verify the predictive capability. It may not be that precise but more generally correct. I don’t think anyone would dispute that I have a precise fit to existing data.

Reply to  TonyL
July 12, 2016 1:51 pm

Thank you for the explanation. I will study this a bit.

Reply to  TonyL
July 16, 2016 12:54 pm

I am a little later on this than I wanted to be but I did go back to look at just analyzing the daily data only. That does not go back to 1854 like the monthly data. I think I give up something when I dismiss that much data to consider. There are now over 12,700 data points now so it takes longer to struggle through things.
The analysis of the full range is given here.!AkPliAI0REKh_TNycv5K8Aj2VgCK
A close up,!AkPliAI0REKh_TRrMCoOJydhvFET
In comparison to the previous effort which was a combination of monthly and daily data you can notice that in the recent data it did not track with the spur but went through it.
Just using the daily data I also get a different projection that you can see here.!AkPliAI0REKh_TWu-Wqiy5PmuZI1
This one does get into the La Nina range a short time from now but both of them indicate we are on the way back up.
No question that I am out on a limb. I am not sure how it will go but I do follow this and want to see which way it goes.
Thank you for your interest.

Michael D
July 12, 2016 10:34 am

I’m so tired of headlines saying “this year may be the hottest year on record” or “this storm may be the worst in 50 years” and then no headline at all when they are not the hottest or the worst. So a headline that says “the pause may be back by Christmas” is just irritating.
Save the headlines for when events really occur. Please.

Reply to  Michael D
July 12, 2016 5:25 pm

There are not enough dramatic events to fill the news arena. Besides, reality is boring. The new media considers itself very, very important so they have to “misspeak” or use future predictions now and then or people won’t stay afraid and glued to the news.

Svend Ferdinandsen
July 12, 2016 12:09 pm

I can’t see other than CO2 must make the temperature drop. What else could it be. Perfect correlation between rising CO2 and dropping temperature. With a little funding i would be able to predict when the disaster happens.
“Save the headlines for when events really occur. Please.” That is so old school. Make the headlines now before it happens. It might never happen, so you will never get a headline, better be ahead of time and make your day. There are no fame in telling we are in shit to the neck, when all realise it.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
July 12, 2016 2:59 pm

Headlines (pressure) + CO2 = Dry Ice
Dry Ice is cold!
But then again, CO2 causes warming. (At least, Man’s does.)
Maybe the key to stopping CAGW is to changed the Headlines about CO2?
(I’ll build a fire if someone will bring the limestone.8-)

July 12, 2016 2:22 pm

What really pisses me off, is when the alarmists, and the sycophants in the media holler “the hottest day/month/year in history”. How do we know that? History goes back about 4,000 years, with some claiming it goes back further, especially if oral traditions are thought of as history. Were are the temperature records to the hundredth of a degree going back to the beginning of history?
And what about the idiotic idea of “the hottest day/month/year ever”??? Every? Hotter than 4.5 Billion years ago? How do you know that? (and most would dispute that anyway)
The temperature record for the planet is very recent, and it is totally corrupted by politics. We know darn little about the past — less than we used to before the “Team” stared cooking the books.

Richard M
July 12, 2016 8:18 pm

The recent El Nino has added between 2-3 C of anomaly above the pause baseline. This is what needs to be compensated for in order of the pause to continue. And, we are still likely to have one more month adding to this total. The pause baseline for RSS is around .24. So, for example, a 10 month period of a zero average anomaly will subtract 10*.24 or 2.4 C. That will be about what it takes. If it falls faster then the pause will surface faster. I don’t think this is likely for a variety of reasons.
Most important, the Arctic has been adding a lot to the global anomaly. It will need to cool for the anomaly to drop very low in the winter months. That will require more ice forming this winter which is a distinct possibility given all the heat loss over the past winter and a lower AMO value. However, if it doesn’t happen it could take a couple of years for the pause to return.
[2-3 degrees above the baseline??? .mod]

Reply to  Richard M
July 13, 2016 3:17 am

“2-3 degrees above the baseline???”
I think he means degree-months above the pause average of 0.24 (I think it’s 0.25). It’s the right arithmetic. The average since the pause foundered during Feb has to be not more than the average before (over short times) if the pause is to return. And as RichardM says, that would require zero values for the rest of the year and maybe more. RSS is still well above the pause average, so the trend is still rising, not falling. And if you look at Fig 2 in the OP, sustained periods of zero anomaly weren’t seen even back around 2000. There’s no reason to expect them now.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 13, 2016 10:54 am

“It was at 0.255081.”
As I said. What RM is rightly saying, is that since Feb, when the pause exited, there is an accumulation of 2-3 degree-months of excess – eg March = 0.978-0.255=0.723 adds to April 0.842-0.255 etc. The pause will revive if this total comes back to zero, but currently it is still increasing. It would take 8-12 months of zero anomaly (excess 0-0.255) to bring this sum back to zero. And that is unlikely.

July 12, 2016 8:45 pm

I hate to rain on your Santa Claus Parade; I’d rather snow on it instead. The coming La Nina appears to be evaporating before our eyes. See and select “El Nino index”. Scripps’ forecast issued in early July has backed off a lot from early June’s forecast NOAA is predicting “La Nada”
Those are the forecasts. The Nino3.4 anomaly has been stuck at -0.4 for the past 3 weeks according to The only thing favouring further cooling now is a global 3-month lag behind La Nina. We might also get to find out if a sunspot minimum does or does not drive down temperatures.
My tracking of the global NCEP/NCAR anomaly indicates that July so far has a higher anomaly than June. This corraborates with the output from Nick Stokes’ website Note the daily anomalies in the right hand column of his site. They have to drop to below +0.250 before we stop pulling away, and start heading back to pauses extending back to 2005 or 2001 or 1997.
I hate to sound so pessimistic, I’m just calling it as I see it.

Johann Wundersamer
July 12, 2016 10:20 pm

The ways of climate science change.

Mark - Helsinki
July 13, 2016 1:16 am

They will cook up more heat from where they have no data, Greenland and the arctic, and smear it across the top of the planet and claim a record

Robert from oz
July 13, 2016 2:13 am

Darwin is having a cold spell 26 degrees Celsius ,which means out comes the winter woollies .

Robert from oz
July 13, 2016 2:15 am

Tennant creek went from 30 yesterday to 10 today now that’s a change .

July 13, 2016 3:28 am

This will be a test of Treberth (and other) stepwise increase in temperatures. Perhaps will the next ten years show a higher mean. I will not predict

Reply to  nobodysknowledge
July 13, 2016 3:31 am

But if we look at the global warming the last 120 years, it looks like it gets up.

July 14, 2016 2:43 pm

It won’t happen. But is the pause possible in 2017? How low does the near term future have to be before we have a pause again?
Meanwhile the made up / terrestrial datasets face the risk that 2016 will not beat 2015. They’ve already completely disappeared the 1998 El Niño, time to start adjusting out this one.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights