NEW STUDY CONFIRMS: THE WARMING ‘PAUSE’ IS REAL AND REVEALING

by Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor

A new paper has been published in the Analysis section of Nature called Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus.’ It confirms that the ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ is real. It is also rather revealing.

It attempts to explain the ‘Pause’ by looking into what is known about climate variability. They say that four years after the release of the IPCC AR5 report, which contained much about the ‘hiatus’ it is time to see what can be learned.

One could be a little sarcastic in saying why would Nature devote seven of its desirable pages to an event that some vehemently say never existed and maintain its existence has been disproved long ago. Now, however, as the El Nino spike of the past few years levels off, analysing the ‘pause’ seems to be coming back into fashion.

The authors of this recent paper delicately tread a line between the two opposing camps saying, on the one hand, that both sides have a point and their particular methods of analysis are understandable. But on the other hand they make it clear that there is a real event that needs studying.

As someone who has paid close attention to the ‘pause’ for almost a decade I am perhaps more attentive than most when it comes to a retelling of the history of the idea and the observations.

The authors say the pause started with claims from outside the scientific community. Well, yes and no. It was tentatively suggested in 2006 and 2007 by climate sceptics many of whom were experienced scientists and quite capable of reading a graph and calculating statistics. A decade after it was raised, every time the ‘pause’ is debated it is a tribute to those who first noticed it and faced harsh criticism. It was the sceptics who noticed the ‘pause,’ and in doing so made a valuable contribution to science. For years it was only analysed and discussed on the blogosphere before journals took notice.

There is nothing new in their recent paper or that hasn’t been discussed by the GWPF. Perhaps that will give pause for thought for some who see battle lines drawn between pause supporters (sceptics) and pause busters (scientists).

What the authors miss, with their three definitions of the pause, is a simple fact we have often pointed out. Look at HadCRUT4 from 2001 (after the 1999-2000 El Nino/La Nina event) until 2014 (before the start of the recent El Nino event) and you will see the temperature is flat. Apart from the recent El Nino there has been no global increase since 2001, even though there have been El Ninos and La Ninas in that period. Now that’s what I call a pause.

I will leave it to the reader to calculate the trend, and the error of the trend for the same period using other global surface temperature data sets. The duration of the pause is about half of the nominal 30-year basic climate assessment period, so if it resumes in the next few years it may become the dominant climate event of recent times. The pause ended not because of gradual global warming but because of a natural weather event whose temporary increased rate of global warming was far too large to be anthropogenic. This didn’t stop some from claiming we had entered a period of catastrophic global warming.

Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 11.29.44

Look at their Fig 1 showing trends in global temperature data sets. It shows that since about 2000 the trend in all data sets has been decreasing. This was only halted by the recent El Nino. Note that all the variations on the graph are said to be within the bounds of natural variability according to the authors, indicating that nothing unusual has happened over the duration of the graph.

Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 12.22.16

Consider also their figure 2b and c. It shows HadCRUT3 from 1980 -2008 and points out the recent pause period. It then shows five global temperature data sets from 1980 – 2015 showing that the pause has gone away. Never mind that the reason why the pause has stopped is not a climatic one, but due to the short-term El Nino.

Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 11.28.14

Look also at their Fig 5 which is said to reconcile observations and computer models showing that there is no discrepancy. Again it is the recent El Nino that brings models and data together. Without the introduction of this short-lived weather event the climate models would obviously be running too warm.

Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 11.26.03

All this negates the paper’s aim to explain the pause in terms of what is known about climate variability.

There is also a commentary on the paper published in Nature’s news and views section by Risbey and Lewandowsky which is absurd. They are wrong in their views about HadCRUT4 and flat periods, see above. They point out that the data sets continue to show significant warming trends when the trend length exceeds 16 years. This is an obvious point when looking at the rise in global temperature seen in the years prior to the 1998 El Nino event. They should also look at Fig 1 again and bear in mind what I say about El Ninos.

The pause has been extremely valuable and illuminating for climate science. A decade ago it was held that the anthropogenic signal of global warming was strong. Only when surface temperatures did not increase by the 0.3°C per decade most climate models had predicted that qualifications were made. Natural decadal variability was used to explain the lack of temperature rise and it resulted in a gradual change of view.

Now it was claimed that the anthropogenic signal was being obscured by decadal climatic variability and it would be several decades before it emerged and exceeded it, as Meehl et al said in Nature Climate Change, “Longer-term externally forced trends in global mean surface temperatures are embedded in the background noise of internally generated multidecadal variability.”

Whether the pause will return after the recent El Nino and its aftermath settles down remains to be seen. From its sceptical beginnings the pause has become the major controversy and debating point in climate science. Despite ongoing attempts to either deny it altogether or to find new reasons for its existence, nobody really knows what caused it or whether it will be re-established.

Advertisements

408 thoughts on “NEW STUDY CONFIRMS: THE WARMING ‘PAUSE’ IS REAL AND REVEALING

  1. I feel quite confident that as fact after fact comes to light, eventually IPCC itself will come to the party and accept the Pause. It can do no other.

    • AndyE:

      You say

      I feel quite confident that as fact after fact comes to light, eventually IPCC itself will come to the party and accept the Pause. It can do no other.

      You are years behind.

      Box 9.2 on page 769 of Chapter 9 of IPCC the AR5 Working Group 1 (i.e. the most recent IPCC so-called science report) is here and says

      Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years

      Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Liebmann et al., 2010). However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus.

      GMST trend is global mean surface temperature trend.
      A “hiatus” is a stop and “the observed GMST trend hiatus” is the ‘Pause’..

      Richard

      • It’s not IPCC that “denies” the pause. It’s the folks translating CMIP5 for MSM “journalists” (who cannot comprehend technical writing, or don’t want to) and the MSM talking heads themselves, who, even if someone translated CMIP5’s statement on the “hiatus” to them, ignore such banalities and choose to simply chant the mantra “It’s CO2, and it’s mankind’s fault.”

      • Barryjo:

        You quote from my extract from IPCC AR5 and comment

        “model response error” I love it.

        I think you will interested in – and amused by – the following anecdote.

        Long ago, in 2000, I was one of a group of 15 scientists invited from around the world to give a briefing on climate science at the US Congress in Washington DC. There were three briefing sessions that were provided by three panels.

        Session 1 was on climate data and its panel was chaired by Fred Singer.
        Session 2 was on climate models and its panel was chaired by me.
        Session 3 was on climate policy and its panel was chaired by David Wojick.

        In each Session each member of its panel gave a presentation and questions from the floor were invited when those presentations were all completed.

        The first questioner of Session 2 stood and said in an aggressive manner,
        The first Session said we cannot trust the climate data. Now this session says we cannot trust the models. Where do we go from here? ”

        Gert Rainer-Webber started to stand to reply but as chairman I signaled him to stay seated and I turned to face the questioner. I said,
        “Sir,
        either the climate data are right or they are not.
        If the climate data are right then the climate models cannot emulate past climate.
        If the climate data are not right then we have nothing with which to assess the climate models.
        In either case, we cannot trust the climate models to project future climate.
        So, I agree your question, Sir, “Where do we go from here?

        The questioner remained silent and studied his shoes so I checked that Gerd did not want to add anything then asked for the next question.

        Richard

        [Thank you for your time, your efforts. .mod]

      • Recounts Richard S. Courtney:

        “Sir, either the climate data are right or they are not.
        If the climate data are right then the climate models cannot emulate past climate.
        If the climate data are not right then we have nothing with which to assess the climate models.
        In either case, we cannot trust the climate models to project future climate.
        So, I agree your question, Sir, “Where do we go from here? ”

        Seventeen years ago. That should have been the end of it, right there. But alas, the Climate Wars show no sign of abating. Which only goes to show, I suppose, that it was never really about the science.

        /Mr Lynn

  2. Sorry but climate science reminds me of “chart theory” in the stockbroker realm in which the salesman uses lots of turning point terms, double bottoms etc etc and the observer then realizes they are just making it up as the chart data is updated. The “chartist” has no fundamental understanding of the mechanisms involved for use in prediction. It’s trading theory and day trading on crowd response.

      • MarkW

        We have warm beer in the UK, it’s never too cold for a pint of Winter Warmer.

      • “henryp May 4, 2017 at 8:23 pm
        Oh noes. Bier has to be very cold and the weather must be warm. Luckily it is mostly warm here….”

        British beers, ales, lagers, porters, stouts right from the tap are quite lovely in all weather!

        Especially when accompanied by a hot roast beef sandwich or even some news wrapped fish and chips. (Avoid the Grauniad whose pages, especially those of delusional dana’s falsehoods, impart a bitter fishy taste.)

        Of course, the pint size serving always seems the perfect amount. Nor does British beer served as it is, seem to include the industrial sized gas pains so many cold beers do.

        Then again, I also loved Belgium’s beers and Deutschland’s beers and France’s wines.

        I happened upon the Belgium beer shop late one night around 11pm.
        At first he put up with me, but as I asked questions he got more involved in sharing beers with me, (my dime of course).
        I learned an incredible amount and sopped up an amazing amount of suds and could barely walk to my hotel.

        Later that year, I mentioned the Belgium’s beer proprietor in a German beer store and some of the chaff I learned about plain beer glasses and gold rimmed official beer glasses. I ended up buying some platinum rimmed glasses and the proper beers to drink. At least I stayed sober enough to walk back to my hotel.

        I was looking forward to trying the same approach on Switzerland’s beer shops, but work cancelled the European tour.
        I still have some lovely glasses, though I did gift the fancy ones as a wedding present, which is why I splurged on those glasses. I did drink the beers though. What gifts?

      • Warm beer is better for children and other living things, because it releases more life-giving CO2.

      • ATheoK,

        You learned from the real beer country in the world… A long time ago we studied chemistry and our professor was a biochemist, specialised in beer. Result: we visited a lot of breweries, including the Trappist brewery of Westmalle, normally closed for any public.

        Indeed every beer here has its own glass and its own best temperature to drink, that glass is specifically made to give the best taste at the ideal temperature of that specific beer…

        Unfortunately (or not…) I am slightly allergic for alcohol, thus no beer for me, but I always taste it with one sip to give my comments on its quality.

        One of the important differences between the best beers and most of the simple “Pilsner” type beers is that the former still contain the yeast of the last fermentation in the bottle itself: that gives the extra taste. Most beers are filtered before bottling…

      • There was an internet futures trading exchange “Intrade” where one could wager on markets, election results, but also on climate related benchmarks like “arctic sea ice extent” etc. But the Feds shut them down in 2014.

      • Definitely. A runup like 2015-16 would be an obvious shorting opportunity in any market.

        Still probably not too late.

      • “Climate shorts?
        Sounds like a product opportunity.”

        If the climate warms up as much as the alarmists predict, we’ll all be wearing shorts.

    • Actually, real chart theory is more honest than climate science. A real chartist will tell you that technical analysis (aka chart reading) is a wind sock, not a crystal ball, and that charts indicate probabilities, not certainties; one bets on probabilities. Good chartists will have their own pet area of probability research that they’ve studied very extensively and honed, and that gives them a better understanding of the real probabilities behind particular price actions (“setups.”)

      • Don132

        Rigorously researched & prepared charts are perfect for two situations:

        1) looking back and doing a “could of / would of / should of” analysis (voodoo, with & without chicken bones, has proved more reliable)

        2) Bird cages.

    • I’ve said this for some time now, global warming errr climate change is only apparent on man-made graphs, the observable changes are far too small for a human to notice in a lifetime.

    • True, but then neither does anyone else. A market is like weather, only less predictable. Secular effects (noise) dominate market behaviour so a day trader listening to the crowds is acting about as rationally as you can in a chaotic environment.

    • It astounds me that humanity has yet to come to grips with the fact that the future is unpredictable.

      The illusion that we understand the past fosters overconfidence in our ability to predict the future. link

      The more time and effort and intelligence and computer power an expert has put into understanding his field, the stronger is the illusion referred to above. ie. “The guy’s got three PhDs. He must be right about what the stock market is going to do.”

      A dart-throwing chimp does a better job at stock picking.

      • @commieBob

        What’s really sad is, sceptics have to hope the world freezes over before the alarmist’s admit they are wrong. Mind you, it’ll take hell to freeze over before that happens, never mind the planet.

        Cue Eagles song – Hotel California – “We are programmed to receive. You can check-out any time you like,
        But you can never leave”

      • I resemble that remark!

        HotScot,

        If the world should freeze over tomorrow, the Team would claim that they predicted that! Global warming causes global freezing. It’s right there in the models. But so is the Venus Express!

        Whatever happens, it’s worse than we thought and all humanity’s fault!

    • I’ve remarked in other fora that stock chart technical analysis is baseless, but, because it was sold to investors and is now religiously followed, it is fool hardy to not give this self-fulfilling prognostic ‘tool’ consideration when the classic shapes are strong. I used to have success more often with fundamental analysis (supply-demand aspects) especially in commodity markets and good timely data works well when you can get it. But don’t miss out on a strong crossing over of the rising 14day moving avg price curve over the 100day moving average price curve (it’s been a long time and I may not have the long term curve right).

      • Fundamental analysis suggests what to buy. Technical analysis suggests when to buy.

        It has worked for me.

      • In part of course because TA is a self-fulfilling prophecy, relied upon by so many that its signals do have an effect on the market.

        Combined with letting your winnings run and cutting your losses at stop loss points, both TA and FA are better than nothing, if you’re going to trade rather than holding stocks for 30 years. As the stock and bond manipulator Buffett says, “It’s time in the market, not timing the market”. Both have worked for me.

      • Just like the climate models….either said to be good or bad, they only work for the duration that the data being supplied them, support their design.
        Fall outside the parameters, and the models themselves become redundant….and rightly so.
        Ditto anything you normally do within the trading sphere.
        Thinking an approach which worked well in the 70’s and 80’s will still work today, is blinkered and dangerous.
        Not knowing that is the case, only means decision made and comments held, about any outcomes are highly likely to be suspect or simply wrong.

        The parallels to climate models / predictions / study, seem so similar.
        If the scientists don’t know their models/data/approach is wrong, do we doubt the results will be also questionable or wrong?

        D B H

      • Technical Analysis doesn’t work.
        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1181367
        “Technical Analysis Around the World
        Marshall, Cahan & Cahan
        Over 5,000 popular technical trading rules are not consistently profitable in the 49 country indices that comprise the Morgan Stanley Capital Index once data snooping bias is accounted for. [..] we do show that over 5,000 trading rules do not add value beyond what may be expected by chance [..].”.

      • @Chimp – was about to explain that. Acquaintance of mine still in the brokerage business puts it this way: “The long term is knowing the lemming are going to start running eventually. The short term is knowing which cliff they’re going to go over. You make money either way, so long as you are right.”

      • I don’t see how anyone can look at historical charts, compare them with TA signals available at the time, and not see the utility of technical analysis.

        As Bernard Baruch said (paraphrasing), “I get rich not hitting the exact bottoms and tops, but on the 60% runs between 20% of the highs and lows.”

      • Weird concept. If experts are usually wrong then the results should be the same as the monkeys picking the stocks. If the monkeys do better by a random process then it implies the experts actually have some method in their choice that works, even if it works the wrong way.
        Some experts use this to pick the opposite of the field Contrarians.
        Obviously it must work and more study into the field may sort out these negative feedbacks that then must obviously exist.

      • Angtech,

        First, there are no experts.

        Second, the comparative lack of success of professional fund managers doesn’t suggest that they’re onto something, only in reverse, because they do worse than random picking.

        Third, you misunderstand what “contrarian” means. It’s actually the only way to be, but its practitioners are unfortunately often too early. That’s where TA comes in.

        The trend can remain overbought or oversold longer than you have time and money to hang onto your ultimately correct bet.

      • The secret to success in many endeavors is to wait for the crowds to start moving. Then go the other way.

    • Umm…they are the same?
      Really?
      I beg to differ…if only to draw the obvious.
      Yes, a ‘salesman/person’, in ANY realm is often feeding off the gullible, on that we agree.
      The difference is, turning ‘theory’ into cold hard reality.
      The Warmists can’t and haven’t done that.
      A successful trader, can and does.
      Note, I didn’t say broker or salesman – there are good and bad for sure.

      It was the comment just before your own from richardscourtney that caught my eye
      effectively saying that you can base your decision/action upon a model with either good or bad data, yet if the model is broken, then no data, good or bad, will help.

      Ditto in the trading world.

      I really like to add this comment, as I use the trading world experience, to draw my own (yes subjective many times) parallels and comparisons.

      D B H

      • I don’t see how anyone can look at historical charts, compare them with TA signals available at the time, and not see the utility of technical analysis.

        If this were true everyone would be doing it and we would have to look for other points of difference.
        There seem to be some people , like some gamblers who have an innate connection or understsnding with the market that lets them go well. For the normal Ta and fundamental analysist it is just a matter of glow with th marke nd get caught more often thaN nog when you become predictable ie follow signals

    • Resourceguy, it is a good analogy, except that in some hands technical analysis (or Chartism) was not quite the con that got it a bad name. A number of technical analysts, such as Brian Marber, whose charts were used by the Bank of England, provided more accurate forecasts than could be expected bu chance alone. In essence they were using behavioral finance before that branch finally discredited the then popular Efficient Market Hypothesis.

      But the difference between chartism and climate science is that humans actually do influence markets.

  3. If warmists were honest they would admit global warming science gives one pause.

  4. The “Pause” is but part of the Orwellian problems with the temperature records, and the political cooking of various record sets to fit the global warming narrative. Had the record sets kept it clear that there was variation in climate over decades, with increases, decreases, and pauses due to God knows what for sure, the discussion would be much more honest, if less clear.

  5. A peer reviewed paper in the journal Nature confirms the ‘pause’ in global surface temperature changes.
    An unsettling fact for the proponents of ‘settled science’ propaganda…..

  6. You mean those experts on climate modeling didn’t factor in decadal variability? For shame! And I thought they knew what they were doing. Maybe their goal, and not the method, was the most important thing on their minds.

  7. Another crack in the foundations. Except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino blip, no warming this century, a period that also comprises ~35% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 (Keeling curve).

      • Michael darby, silly cherry picking to the max. Not only do you end your trend with a super El Nino, but you start it at a La Nina.

        It is obvious Michael does not understand the concept of a trend. It is a mathematical tool. You actually have to know what you are doing when using tools. It is obvious Michael is either dishonest or clueless. No other option exists.

      • MarkW writes, “WRONG lorcanbonda….you cannot ignore the data from ENSO events because you think they are “anomalous.” They have happened in the past, they will happen in the future. How can you call an ENSO event an “anomaly” if you fully well expect them to happen?”

        MarkW, you seem to ignore what everybody else writes, then interpret it in the most twisted way. He is not “ignoring” data from ENSO. He is factually stating that it is a known distortion in the temperature data which distorts the data trend (with unknown magnitude).

        That is sort of the opposite of ignoring it. Including it in the data trend without comment would be “ignoring” it.

      • lorcanbonda: The piece that you quote was written by Michael, not me.
        An apology would be nice, but I doubt you are capable of it.

      • Barely a 1/3rd of the way into 2017 and you are already confidently predicting what the final numbers are going to be?
        Since the first couple of months of 2017 we were still coming down from the highs of the recent El Nino, it’s hardly surprising that an early look would appear warm.

      • Surface sets are the least reliable, subject to local siting issues, UHI, and tampering, and least likely to agree with each other. Besides, one year hotter by only 0.1C than a previous year is down in the noise and insignificant. 2016 was only fractionally (insignificantly) warmer than 1998, even citing the most generous data set.

      • Michael darby:

        In 2008 the US Government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported

        Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

        Ref. NOAA, ‘The State of the Climate’, 2008
        http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

        As 15 years of the Pause was being reached many (including me) pointed out that this was “a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”. The usual suspects all replied (including on WUWT) that there was no “discrepancy” because one had to remove ENSO effects from the climate data for the comparison to be valid.

        Now, you are saying that making the comparison of model predictions to climate data with ENSO removed is “cherry picking”.

        Please say what you think would be a valid comparison of model predictions to climate data and why.

        Richard

      • Michael darby:

        You say to me

        I’ve made no mention of climate models.

        This entire thread is about the Pause which only has meaning in the context of the climate model predictions that a Pause would not exist.

        You asserted that considering the trend “except” for the recent large ENSO event is “cherry picking”.

        Your assertion demands the question that I provided and you have evaded. So, I repeat it.

        Please say what you think would be a valid comparison of model predictions to climate data and why.

        Richard

      • Sorry Mr. Courtney, I’m ignoring all models, and focusing on the actual data. You cannot exclude any of the effects of the data resulting from an ENSO event. So, I’ll repeat what I said previously: “I’ve made no mention of climate models.”

      • Michael, unless you want to pretend that the El Nino was caused by CO2, why is it wrong to exclude anamolous data when analyzing trends?

      • Michael, your attempts at dishonesty are really amusing.
        The discussion is about global warming and the claimed increases in temperatures that are caused by it.

      • PS: What are the odds, that should there be a massive La Nina in the next couple of years, Michael will be amongst those crying the loudest that it is dishonest to use the La Nina as proof that global warming is over?

      • Only if do as the alarmists do, and not tell anyone that you excluded it, or why.

        There is not and never has been anything wrong with excluding anomalous data, so long as you are up front about it.

        Are you really this ignorant about science?

      • Michael,

        Anomalies are precisely what El Nino and La Nada are. ENSO fluctuations are measured based upon their anomaly from an average, typically the 30-year mean of observed SST, but also in their heating effect upon the atmosphere.

        In El Nino years, a global positive anomaly is observed. The intervals between Very Strong El Ninos appears to be increasing, rather than shortening, as would be expected in a warming world.

      • El Nino is balanced by La Nina. The fact is the name “ENSO” has the “O” for “oscillation” implies it goes back and forth and back and forth. They’ve happened in the past, we expect they will happen in the future. Since the definition of an “anomaly” is “something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected,” and we expect both El Nino and La Nina to happen, it isn’t an anomaly.

      • Michale Darby Writes —

        “MarkW, excluding any data will get you into trouble.”

        This is idiotic. Every “climate” study excludes anomalous data. MarkW is including all of the data.
        then he explains which data he is excluding and why.

        This is not the same thing. What you are doing is similar to someone who plots 99 random points and one outlier, and then draws a line between them and declares a 99% correlation.

      • Michael darby May 4, 2017 at 2:12 pm

        In Climastrology, “anomaly” has a specific meaning. It’s the departure from an average temperature or other measured parameter over time. As I noted, this is usually a thirty-year mean, but in the case of Arctic sea ice extent, it’s a median.

      • WRONG lorcanbonda….you cannot ignore the data from ENSO events because you think they are “anomalous.” They have happened in the past, they will happen in the future. How can you call an ENSO event an “anomaly” if you fully well expect them to happen?

      • Chimp, you are using the word “anomaly” in two different ways. The first one is: “Anomalies are precisely what El Nino and La Nada are” The second is: ” It’s the departure from an average temperature or other measured parameter over time.” Please be more precise when you confound the two. I claim that an ENSO event is not an “anomaly” as you used the term in your first definition.

      • Michael, sometimes El Ninos are balanced by La Ninas, sometimes they aren’t. Even a casual reading of climate history would demonstrate that.
        Regardless, the current El Nino has not yet been balanced by a La Nina. Until it is done, it is even more anomalous.

      • Michael,

        Your claim is wrong. I used the term in exactly the same way both times.

        That you can’t see that isn’t my fault.

        http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/glossary.shtml

        “Anomaly – The deviation of a measurable unit, (e.g., temperature or precipitation) in a given region over a specified period from the long-term average, often the thirty year mean, for the same region.”

        If you don’t like how the term is used in “climate science”, please take it up with NOAA or the IPCC.

      • Chimp, ENSO events are not “anomalies” because we expect them to happen. So you are wrong to call them “anomalies.”

      • Michael,

        How many times do I have to show you what the technical term “anomaly” means in “climate science”. Since ENSO ups, downs and sideways are excursions from a temperature average, they are indubitably anomalies.

        Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

      • Michael darby May 4, 2017 at 2:41 pm

        My last attempt to educate you.

        In climate science, the deviation is from the normal average, as I’ve repeatedly showed you. Can you really be this obtuse, or are just trolling or afraid to admit error?

      • MarkW: ” Until it is done” I suggest you reserve your judgement. Stop calling it “anomalous” UNTIL IT IS DONE.”

      • Chimp, ENSO events are quite “normal.” They happen periodically. So according to your conception of “anomaly” , what is their deviation?

      • Hey, [pruned]!

        The deviation of ENSO oscillations is from a temperature average. El Ninos are higher than average tropical central or eastern Pacific SST. La Ninas are lower.

        You must be [pruned as well.]!

        [Language. .mod]

      • Hey Gabro, please dispense with the name calling. Also please stop confusing the “temperature anomaly” with the “event anomaly” There is a difference. ENSO is not an an anomalous event, we expect them to happen.

      • you can easily see we’re heading for a new glaciation

        The world is heading for a new glaciation. Just wiggling around on the way as it usually does. All our efforts to raise temperatures with CO2 aren’t amounting to much.


        Asterisk is present position

      • You just don’t get it, do you?

        ENSO is defined by its anomalies:

        http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

        “The Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) has become the de-facto standard that NOAA uses for identifying El Niño (warm) and La Niña (cool) events in the tropical Pacific. It is the running 3-month mean SST anomaly for the Niño 3.4 region (i.e., 5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW). Events are defined as 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month periods at or above the +0.5o anomaly for warm (El Niño) events and at or below the -0.5 anomaly for cold (La Niña) events. The threshold is further broken down into Weak (with a 0.5 to 0.9 SST anomaly), Moderate (1.0 to 1.4), Strong (1.5 to 1.9) and Very Strong (≥ 2.0) events. For the purpose of this report for an event to be categorized as weak, moderate, strong or very strong it must have equaled or exceeded the threshold for at least 3 consecutive overlapping 3-month periods.”

        Four uses of the term. How much more convincing do you need.

        Truly a hopeless case.

      • Javier,

        Nice graphic. Must be smoothed, though. Some wiggles are missing between HCO and now.

        Guess we should enjoy the interglacial while it lasts.

      • Michael Darby claims “excluding any data will get you into trouble.”

        This is of course nonsense. You use data to inform and if that data is KNOWN to be due to causes not being investigated, then blindly including the data is not only wrong, it would be misleading.

        Naturally, we already know that is exactly what Michael Darby is trying to accomplish.

      • What else can you expect when Zeke admits the algorithm reduces all past temp recorders from the ones currently being obtained.
        Hence the warmest new records are always the most ” reliable” and all other records are the sdjusted from these .
        Even if we have a freeze all the past records will get more frozen not increased.

      • Michael, ENSO’s are anomalous in the sense that they are not part of the trend. Adding them to the trend is invalid and usually dishonest.

      • Michael, if it’s not caused by CO2, if it isn’t part of the temperature rise, but a one time blip, then it is anomalous. By definition.

    • ristvan,
      you obviously know little about modern climate science — what you are talking about is climate history, which is another subject … that no one who is anyone cares about.

      No warming so far in this century.

      Who cares about ancient history?

      “Another crack in the foundation”.

      There is no foundation beyond a house of cards.

      “Climate science” takes place in the future.

      In fact it’s ONLY in the future.

      Nothing bad actually happens.

      The boogeyman is ALWAYS coming in the future!

      He’s under the bed.

      No, he’s deep in the oceans.

      Or maybe he’s been kept in a mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnalls’ porch since noon today.

      The “science” behind this, to make the predictions seem credible, requires:
      Lot’s of men with thick glasses,
      with advanced science degrees,
      with pocket protectors filled with pencils and pens,
      and a really expensive computer, with a climate game … I mean model … so complex that no human can double check the results unless he knows how to use a slide rule.

      This is a serious post not meant to be funny, which, of course, it is not.

  8. When discussing long term trends in global average temperature anomaly, everybody is rushing too much. The 2015-16 El Niño is not proof of renewed warming, the after-El Niño is not proof of renewed pause. We probably will have to wait until after 2019 to know how the long term trend is behaving.

    • All it really shows is that trend signs are sensitive of initial and terminal conditions when the basic pattern is very nearly trendless. The practice makes about as much since as examining the livers and other organs of geese, or watching the flight or birds to foretell the future,

      • Personally, I was taught to use deer entrails….because after, you get to eat the deer ! …. Yum !

      • Exactly, that is why I came up with this little story ….

        You are in a valley with a consistent elevation of 100′ except for one hill in the middle of the valley. You drive 10 miles to the hill, go up and over the hill and back down the other side to the valley floor. Then you continue on.

        Question: After driving a short distance are you going uphill, downhill or level?

        Obviously, a linear trend of the altitude will show you are going up. However, from the definition of the problem, it is clear you are back on the valley floor and moving level. One has to understand that trends are tools and cannot be used to make statements that disagree with reality.

        Michael Darby tells us you can’t exclude any data, but in this example you need to exclude the data going over the hill to get the right answer. In fact, his claim has now been falsified. What is funny is he would ever make such a silly claim in the first place.

      • Richard M knows what data should be excluded. But when scientists exclude some data from their analysis, Richard M will accuse them of “cooking the books.” Sorry Richard, you can’t have it both ways. Who elected you “god of data applicability?”

      • Poor little Michael, no matter how many times he screams, he still can’t get the masses to accept that he’s in the right.
        If the data has nothing to do with the trend you are looking for, then it is proper to exclude it.
        In this case we are searching for a global warming signal. It’s well known that El Nino’s cause temporary upticks in temperature, and La Nina’s cause temporary drops in temperature.
        Therefore including either an El Nino or a La Nina as the start or end point of your data only serves to confuse.

      • MarkW said: “Poor little Michael, no matter how many times he screams, he still can’t get the masses to accept that he’s in the right.”

        The masses? Exactly which masses are you referring to? The less than 10 people who are disagreeing with Michael here?

      • Michael Darby: “Who elected you “god of data applicability?””

        It’s called simple common sense, Michael. You need to eliminate what is KNOWN noise when trying to find a signal from a set of data. ENSO is KNOWN to be noise in the the climate data. However, if you have noise that clearly balances out (1997-2001) then you can get away with including that data. If you don’t, then including the data is ridiculous. This is not rocket science.

      • Chris, nice attempt at diversion there.
        Is that really the best you can do?
        Are you honestly trying to claim that the 10 people posting here are the only ones with these opinions?

    • Ha ha javier how is warming not proof of warming?

      The long term trend is up, up, up because the lefists say so and they control 90% of the press.

      It will be so hot by 2019 that on a sunny day you will be able to fry two eggs outdoors on a bald man’s head.

    • historical enso index suggests when the amo is in cooler phase enso neutral/ la nina are predominant. with the amo around the peak or just past the peak i think the change required to switch to the cool phase of the amo needs to be noted as it will likely become more apparent in the next few years.

      it will be interesting to see how a cooling atlantic and the changes that will come with it ( a return to more defined seasons for the uk for a start) affect the temperature trend in the northern hemisphere.

    • If your only only tool is a linear trend then even 2019 might still be wrong. However, we can look at data in other ways to tell us what is going on. This summer should give us some solid hints.

      • RM

        “This summer should give us some solid hints”

        Nuff said about paying any attention to you!

      • Bob Broder, if you have some real objection then maybe you should state it. Your insinuation is missing something called logic. The reason this summer may be a good time to evaluate where we are in global temperatures is based on several factors which you didn’t even make an attempt to understand. Why is that?

    • Two consecutive moderate La Ninas, then a weak one, followed the very strong El Nino of 1997-98, so IMO you’re right. The 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 seasons should provide a good read.

      So far this year has been rated a weak La Nina.

      http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

  9. We have a really dangerous unprecedented PAUSE in the Climate!

    We should set up major scientific establishments to study it, and an international treaty to discover what people are doing wrong and then tax them until they stop it.

    Otherwise our grandchildren will never know weird weather again…

    • best comment. satire is always appropriate for absurdity. it might be the only value to come from climate scientology clown posse. 97% of the climate juggalos won’t get it – and that makes it better. :D

    • First, it was climate cooling.
      Then, it was climate warming.
      Now, it’s climate stagnation!

      Stagnation is the worst … it’s the last stage before The End.

      Be afraid … be very afraid!

  10. That’s a nice paper. I came away with the idea that the hiatus is mainly natural variability superimposed on a warming world. Interesting that they did not include 2016 data in their analysis.

      • ReallySkeptical …. they should not have included 2015. It is perfectly fine to include the 1997-98 El Nino due to the La Nina (1998-2001) which balances it out.

      • It’s invalid to include an El Nino or La Nina as your end or start points.
        The trend started prior to the 97/98 event.

    • A natural hiatus which none of the cherished models predicted or can explain, given the unabated rise in CO2 concentration. If “the science is settled”, then scientists should be able to predict a 15-year (their figure, now 19-year) period of no significant warming, just as they can predict a solar eclipse to the minute.

    • ReallySkeptical:

      If you are trying to claim there are people elsewhere who know your views but don’t know your extreme prejudice then please cite who they are or at least where you claim they are.

      Richard

      • I mean the entirety of my dept and the geosciences dept, plus the almost complete majority of scientists that work on climatic science and the majority of scientists and students in our dept that think.

        I don’t know about house husbands or other groups.

      • ReallySkeptical:

        Thankyou for your answer to the question I asked you that was

        If you are trying to claim there are people elsewhere who know your views but don’t know your extreme prejudice then please cite who they are or at least where you claim they are.

        Your answer says in full

        I mean the entirety of my dept and the geosciences dept, plus the almost complete majority of scientists that work on climatic science and the majority of scientists and students in our dept that think.

        I don’t know about house husbands or other groups.

        OK, I am willing to think you believe that. And if you do then I have some advice for you.

        l
        You would benefit from some self reflection.
        .
        This is obvious from the following.

        Your students would be foolish if they did not pretend to go along with your prejudice. But your other assertions reveal much about you and nothing about anybody else.

        It is not credible that you have obtained the knowledge of you possessed by “the almost complete majority of scientists that work on climatic science”: your understanding of what that “great majority” think of you can only be a result of your obvious prejudice.

        And you should have said “the majority of scientists” “in our dept that think” like you ‘think’.

        Richard

      • “Indoctrination”, to the indoctrinator, seems like the mist sublime education. Ask any number of mullahs, imams, and climate researchers.

      • Really Skeptical

        The majority of Christian believe that Christ is the savior that doesn’t make it so or make it not so. They can think just fine, they can reason, they can sight evidence, but it is a choice to believe or a leap of faith. Unfortunately that is what climate science has become it is a religion as evidenced by the fervor shown by those who believe, no true scientist believes that the science is settled based on the use of models that are clearly flawed or when the empirical evidence is so clearly inconclusive, questioning is at the very hart of science, blind belief and faith is religion.

      • but it is a choice to believe or a leap of faith

        Climate science is righteous in their believe, “Co2 has a IR spectrum and temps have gotten warmer (at least where I live they have)”

        Everything else is blind faith and Auto-Tune.

      • Micro

        I always wonder how much of the belief is do to the Air Conditioning effect. The number of people who have AC now compared to 30 years is tremendous, How many people have you known that say it is hotter then they can remember and is it just because they come out of their air conditioned house into the heat when back in the day they had to get used to the heat of the summer. When you confront them and say the average has only gone up 1 degree c or less in the last 80 years and most of that is in the extreme North and the extreme South and is also slightly higher lows at night with and not higher day time high trends that cause the average to be higher they still insist its warmer then they can remember? Craziness has taken hold for sure.

      • Bob boder, replying to Micro

        I always wonder how much of the belief is do to the Air Conditioning effect. The number of people who have AC now compared to 30 years is tremendous, How many people have you known that say it is hotter then they can remember and is it just because they come out of their air conditioned house into the heat when back in the day they had to get used to the heat of the summer. When you confront them and say the average has only gone up 1 degree c or less in the last 80 years

        No, I think it is more that the CAGW continuous alarms and hand-wringing Apocalypse NOW!!!! (if we don’t do something NOW!!!!) is using a projected/feared/imagined 10-15 degrees warming (in the next 100 to 300 years) as if that were the warming since 1970. Then with everything confused that much, they “project” possible disasters (that “might occur then” IF 15 degrees warming happens) to an immediate “we are causing 100,000 species to die (implying those deaths are actually happening “now”.

        Further, their propaganda now is using the “1 degree warming” (since 1870-1830-1815 .. and soon 1760!) as if it were an acknowledged and measured “warming” since 1970!

        When people are told the actual temperatures show only 1/3 of one degree since 1976, they see the hype for what it actually is.

    • Skeptical, are you accepting the consequences of natural variation? It shows you that you have to chop the warming trend by two thirds to fit observations! Because the team thought they had killed the pause, you came along too late for the memo to not accept the pause. Here’s the deal, The warming of the 80s and 90s was therefore boosted by natural var and therefore CO2 only causes at most 1/3 of that warming. You see, without getting talking points s on high, you actually followed a skeptical thought process of your own. Don’t be afraid, this is good.

  11. And, as usual, the authors of that article failed to insert a vertical line in their charts showing the date of the models – thus misleading people into thinking the models have an extensive history of accurate predictions, as opposed to a lengthy period of hind-casting.

  12. My first ever post on WUWT under the name “phlogiston” was I think in 2006 or 2007. I commented that a third order polynomial fit to the instrumental record after about 1980 showed the cube term at the recent end of the graph inflecting downward. Of course it attracted dismissive comments from Joel Shore about fitting to noise. But a decade later it looks like that levelling off is real.

    Indeed around 2006 quite a few of us started sensing that something was changing in climate change.

  13. Now, however, as the El Nino spike of the past few years levels off,

    First, the notion the El Nino spike will be leveling off is pure speculation. It may; it may not. As it is, the surface temperature post El Niño remains well above expectations (see gavin Schmidt’s early take on 2017,) which means the resumption of the pause is becoming less and less likely. The forecast for an El Niño to develop later this year remains in place as we enter the May threshold. But even if an El Niño does not develop, ENSO neutral conditions for the rest of the year can result in 2017 becoming a record/near-record year for warmth.

    • JCH:

      “the rest of the year can result in 2017 becoming a record/near-record year for warmth.”

      Near-record warmth compared to what? Based on what? Colour me skeptical.

      Your comment reminds me of the media coverage on the “unprecedented” flooding in Quebec over the last few weeks. Unprecedented until you read the fine print.

      Flood One: “Worst flooding in decades.” (The last flood of this magnitude was in 1998 – or 19 years ago – which, credit due – was reported.)

      Flood Two: Current flooding in Quebec – “Worst flooding in recent memory.” Fair enough. The last flood of this magnitude was 1974 or 53 years ago (again credit due, the coverage included an older local talking about the 1974 flood). But most of the population won’t remember it which makes it “unprecedented” in their lifetimes. That doesn’t make it unprecedented. One needs to watch for the adjectives. Now imagine a 1:500 flood along the rivers where traditionally the towns are all built on or adjacent to flood plains. Having 7 decades under my belt, I have to say it is clear that what is “Old is New Again.” over and over and over again. The media has no concept of return periods.

      IMHO, you can’t properly measure climate change in a person’s lifetime. 30 years is a construct, just like Global Temperature. How many people understand that both are conventions or “Constructs”? They may be useful “Constructs”, but they are still a “Constructs”.

      We’ll all be dead before we know where Gaia is taking us.

      Have a good day.

      Time to go stack some hay.

      Wayne Delbeke

      • flooding in Quebec

        I report the following only to suggest that flooding is a long recurring issue, thus expected, and not “unprecedented.”

        When the French settled along the rivers of North America, the buildings were placed high on the natural levees. Lots were drawn going away from the rivers, often into a low swampy area. One side of the river would have lots tapering to a point. On the opposite, the lots would get wider. In English, this is called the “French Long Lot” system, in contrast to a couple of other land measurement ways (ex: metes & bounds; The Public Land Survey System {PLSS}).
        Long Lots

      • wayne delbeke “IMHO, you can’t properly measure climate change in a person’s lifetime. 30 years is a construct, just like Global Temperature. How many people understand that both are conventions or “Constructs”? They may be useful “Constructs”, but they are still a “Constructs”.”

        too many people do not seem to realise this wayne.great point ,well made.

    • JCH:

      the notion the El Nino spike will be leveling off is pure speculation.

      Which of course is correct, but then you engage in pure speculation about a 2017 El Niño and about 2017 being record/near record warmth. Priceless. I guess only one side is allowed to speculate.

      • It so sweet to be intellectually average and blow politicized scientists out of the water.

        Enjoy it then. I guess being intellectually average must come with few intellectual pleasures.

    • JCH,

      Your speculation that another El Nino is in the works is the least likely outcome, from where we are now. NOAA categorizes 2017 so far as a weak La Nina year.

      For the first six months after their peaks, the 2016 Very Strong El Nino (Feb peak) cooled more rapidly than the 1998 VSEL (Apr peak). For the subsequent eight months, 1998-99 cooled more rapidly than after the 2016-17, producing a Moderate La Nina.

      Here’s what we have so far for UAH anomalies, degrees C:

      El Nino Year: 1998 2016
      Peak Month: 0.74 0.83
      Next Month: 0.64 0.73
      Next Month: 0.57 0.71
      Next Month: 0.51 0.54
      Next Month: 0.52 0.34
      Next Month: 0.44 0.39
      Next Month: 0.40 0.43
      Next Month: 0.12 0.44
      Next Month: 0.25 0.41
      Next Month: 0.06 0.45
      Next Month: 0.17 0.24
      Next Month: -0.08 0.30 (Jan 2017)
      Next Month: 0.01 0.35
      Next Month: -0.04 0.19
      Next Month: -0.15 0.27 (Prelim)

      For the past five months, the anomaly has fluctuated between 0.19 and 0.35 degrees C. If global mean temperature stays in that range for the rest of the year, or even averages 0.45 (mean for last eight months of 2016), it will still be far from a record. The first four months of 2017 average an anomaly of 0.28 degrees C (rounded up). For Jan-Apr 2016, the anomaly was 0.70 (rounded down).

      2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
      2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.99
      2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09
      2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
      2016 05 +0.54 +0.65 +0.44 +0.71
      2016 06 +0.34 +0.51 +0.17 +0.37
      2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.30 +0.48
      2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.32 +0.49
      2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.39 +0.37
      2016 10 +0.41 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
      2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
      2016 12 +0.24 +0.19 +0.30 +0.21

      • Here are the rankings and anomalies for the ten warmest years of the past 38 in the satellite record:

        1. 2016*** @ 0.505 degrees C
        2. 1998*** @ 0.484
        3. 2010** @ 0.335
        4. 2015*** @ 0.260
        5. 2002** @ 0.217
        6. 2005* @ 0.199
        7. 2003** @ 0.186
        8. 2014 @ 0.178
        9. 2007* @ 0.160
        10. 2013 @ 0.132

        This year might break into the Top Five, but also could rank in the second five. Top Two however looks unlikely.

        ***Very Strong El Nino year
        **Moderate El Nino year
        *Weak El Nino Year

        La Nada years include 2014 and 2013, but clearly building toward the subsequent VSEL event. No human fingerprint detectable.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/26/warmest-ten-years-on-record-now-includes-all-december-data/

        http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/december/dec2016_GTR.pdf

        Notes on data released Jan. 3, 2017:

        Globally, 2016 edged out 1998 by +0.02 C to become the
        warmest year in the 38-year satellite temperature record,
        according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System
        Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
        Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would
        technically be a statistical tie, with a higher probability that
        2016 was warmer than 1998. The main difference was the
        extra warmth in the Northern Hemisphere in 2016 compared
        to 1998.

        Year GL NH SH TROP
        2016 +0.505 +0.61 +0.40 +0.61 C
        1998 +0.484 +0.51 +0.46 +0.68 C

        “The question is, does 2016’s record warmth mean anything
        scientifically?” Christy said. “I suppose the answer is, not
        really. Both 1998 and 2016 are anomalies, outliers, and in
        both cases we have an easily identifiable cause for that
        anomaly: A powerful El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event.
        While El Niños are natural climatic events, they also are
        transient. In the study of climate, we are more concerned
        with accurately identifying long-term temperature trends
        than we are with short-term spikes and dips, especially
        when those spikes and dips have easily identified natural
        causes.

        “Some records catch our attention because we usually
        struggle to cope with rare events. For example, the Sept.-
        Nov. record heat and dryness in the southeastern U.S. (now
        a thing of the past) will be remembered more than the
        probability that 2016 edged 1998 in global temperatures.
        So, from the long-term perspective, 2016’s record may be
        less noteworthy than where the month-to-month
        temperature settles out between warming and cooling
        events.”

      • Chimp
        May 4, 2017 at 1:26 pm

        Here are the rankings and anomalies for the ten warmest years of the past 38 in the satellite record:

        1. 2016*** @ 0.505 degrees C
        2. 1998*** @ 0.484
        3. 2010** @ 0.335
        4. 2015*** @ 0.260
        5. 2002** @ 0.217
        6. 2005* @ 0.199
        7. 2003** @ 0.186
        8. 2014 @ 0.178
        9. 2007* @ 0.160
        10. 2013 @ 0.132

        After our long discussion of the Law of Large Numbers, we know those three-decimal-point anomalies are invalid. Keeping to proper statistical reporting methods, those numbers would look like the following, with some variance given, probably somewhere around

        1. 2016*** @ 0.500 C +/- 0.003C
        2. 1998*** @ 0.500 C +/- 0.003C
        3. 2010** @ 0.300 C +/- 0.003C
        4. 2015*** @ 0.300 C +/- 0.003C
        5. 2002** @ 0.200 C +/- 0.003C
        6. 2005* @ 0.200 C +/- 0.003C
        7. 2003** @ 0.200 C +/- 0.003C
        8. 2014 @ 0.200 C +/- 0.003C
        9. 2007* @ 0.200 C +/- 0.003C
        10. 2013 @ 0.100 C +/- 0.003C

        The LLN does not allow one to use that three-decimal-point slop in your final number. It doesn’t increase the accuracy, only the precision. One might show the second decimal point, for illustrative purposes, but the statistically correct version only uses one.

    • Your problem is everything has a very simple explanation. The reason 2017 started warm has to do with the AMO which affects winter temperatures the most. That is the reason for the recent cooling of surface temperatures. Over the summer all the anomalies with fall. As for the El Nino, I think it just went pffffffft.

  14. The AMO is a sine of our times.

    [Let us not get distracted with obscurve tangents. .mod]

    • The AMO is a sine of our times.

      “[Let us not get distracted with obscurve tangents. .mod}

      Three cheers for Mr. Mod.

      .mod, better known as the modest moderator, obviously thinks he is the new Shakespeare … and also thinks we don’t know he obviously does his best moderatin’ in his “corner office” (a bar stool at the local pub) after seven “energy drinks” (beers) !

      This post is moderator bait.
      Someone please wake him up.

  15. It wasn’t that long ago that we were being told that the reason why the models didn’t have to include natural variability was because CO2 was so strong that it completely swamped natural variability.

    • +1. But the end is Nye, New York will be under water before 2000. And snow will be an exciting and rare event.

    • Yes, that is the significance of the pause and the el nino which broke it. The more extravagant claims that CO2 levels are the only significant factor influencing the weather just look silly.

      It’s at times like this I feel so sorry for 1998. Once the incontrovertible proof that the world was about to catch fire. Now not even a blip on the ever smoothing curve. Fame is so fleeting.

      • 1998 is still looking good in the satellite records, though. :)

        Satellite records are the only records we should use since the surface temperature records have been modified to the point of uselessness by the CAGW promoters at NASA and NOAA.

        Besides, NASA says the satellite record is the most accurate of all the records. We should use the most accurate record when seeking answers and should assume there is something wrong with other records that do not agree with the satellites.

      • The satellite record is the only one that comes close to covering the entire planet. All of the ground sensor networks are limited to covering 2 to 5% of the planet, and then “infilling” the rest.

    • If I remember correctly, we were also told that the “unforced” model runs (without CO2) contained everything that “we know about”. And the agreement with the “data” was poor. So then the models were run with CO2 forcing as well, and the agreement with the “data” was great, so, obviously, CO2 was the important control knob. (Ignore that the agreement between the aggregate of the CMIP5 models and the “data” is now pretty poor.) So, now, we are told that natural variability (all the stuff in the unforced model runs that “we know about”) is no so powerful that it swamped the anthropogenic effects for over 15 years, but only in the real world, not in the CMIP5 world. So, which is it – CO2 dominates everything, or natural variability can counteract CO2?

      • MarkW, I took the bullet for you. The Graun article is by the hysterical Graham Readfearn, who starts off his article by stating his opinion that there never has been a “pause” and it’s all just a big hoax by deniers. He then asks a small phalanx of alarmists / consensus scientists (Mann, Rahmsdorf and a few others) about the paper, ostensibly, but really he just borrows on their authority and street cred back up his opinion that there has never been any pause or slowdown, no reason to stop panicking, no reason to assume CAGW alarmism is still not the appropriate order of the day . He ignores the paper itself most studiously. Several of his respondents use the term pause or hiatus as if they acknowledge a pause, but have varying explanations for it (noise, not signal, well within the model’s expectations, etc)t, but then the final guy states quite unequivocally “yes, it’s a real thing.” Readfearn interprets and dissembles each comment in order, except, curiously, that final one, which he ignores completely, which sort of leaves a sour taste to an otherwise brilliant job of sophistry in which he carried forward his premise that all the scientists are totally on board with his opinion. There was no pause, there is no reason to doubt. We’re all going to die if we keep burning fossil fuels. He restates his opinion to close the article as if he had just awakened from a deep sleep. It’s exactly what you’d expect from him, from the Graun, from Nuccitelli or any of their contributors. I’m sure you’re shocked.

      • The Guardian also recently ran a piece on the imminent demise of the Great Barrier Reef as a result of Global Warming. The GBR will still be there a decade hence, unlike the Guardian, which is heading for insolvency.

    • Griff, you are at your funniest when you do your original material. This derivative stuff is just so so. Besides, it’s not polite to gatecrash another comedian’s gig. That dude in the Grauniad won’t appreciate you crowding his act as the one sick puppy.

  16. Didn’t Cowtan and Way say their paper used a 100-year moving average smoothing function that mathematically biases the temperatures of the last 100 year segment upward? IMO, no one should use the last 100 years of their reconstruction in any meta-analysis.

  17. The pause began at the same time as I noticed that increased jet stream meridionality was returning after a tendency towards zonality during the warming period.
    At the same time, global cloudiness stopped falling and may now be increasing once more.
    And the recovery of ozone above the poles became apparent.
    Those phenomena should form the basis of any proposed investigation of the current temperature pause.

  18. What “pause?” Near as I can tell from their funding budgets, the money has continued to flow. That’s the only pause that matters to them.

  19. In the heads I win tails you lose of group-think climate science, temperatures that exceeded the climate prediction models would still be used to confirm the validity of the model so why is it that temperatures that deviate in the other direction still validate the modeling?

  20. Thanks for a clear, excellent and revealing summary. Not to mention the Lew debunk ;-]

  21. Skeptics aren’t scientists?

    That will come as a surprise to the many skeptical scientists most here could name.

    Good article, but I’d change that sentence to read “skeptical and consensus scientists”.

    • “Perhaps that will give pause for thought for some who see battle lines drawn between pause supporters (sceptics) and pause busters (scientists).”

      “Perhaps that will give pause for thought for some who see battle lines drawn between pause supporters (skeptical scientists) and pause busters (consensus scientists).”

    • Yes, Chimp, I think it should read “…pause supporters (sceptics) and pause busters (alarmists).”

      • Yeah, that works.

        Those who support it, recognize that it exists, and that alarmists did not predict it. Indeed it shows just how worthless their GIGO models are.

      • No, it demonstrates what a flimsy artifact the so-called pause is. Features shorter than 30 years are just weather.
        This shows a bit less weather:

        I’d be a lot happier if there was a 10-20 year ‘pause’ on that graph.

        It shows why the Arctic is likely to be a seasonal ocean very soon.

        That will change the weather.

      • Tony,

        The Arctic is not going to be ice-free any time soon.

        It’s summer sea ice extent has stayed about the same on average for the past decade. In climate, trends change regularly.

        The smallest unit of climate is indeed conventionally said to be 30 years, although 300, 3000 and 30,000 are a lot more meaningful.

        But we’re talking here about the models. If AGW be valid, then you shouldn’t have to wait 30 years for it to show up as forecast by models. The ever increasing GHG in the air should be evident on a much shorter time frame.

      • Hey McClod.. did you know that current Arctic sea ice extent is above that of 90-95% of the Holocene?

      • Andy,

        Paper from just last year on Holocene sea ice record along Beringia:

        http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683616645939?journalCode=hola

        Two sediment cores from the Chukchi Sea margin were investigated for the Arctic sea-ice biomarker IP25, along with marine and terrestrial sterols and glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers (GDGTs). This is the first paleoclimatic application of IP25 in the Chukchi-Alaskan region of the Arctic, which is key for understanding Arctic–Pacific interactions and is experiencing rapid sea-ice retreat under present warming. Sea-ice and related circulation conditions were characterized in this study with a multicentury resolution for the long-term Holocene record to multidecadal for the last several centuries. Sea ice was found to be present during the entire record but with considerable spatial and temporal variability. After very low deglacial IP25 values, possibly related to permanent sea ice and/or an iceberg-dominated environment, cores from the upper slope and shelf show IP25 maxima, interpreted as representing a relative proximity to the sea-ice margin, in the early (ca. 8–9 ka) and middle (ca. 5–6 ka) Holocene, respectively. Along with isoprenoid GDGT distribution, this asynchronicity in sea-ice history probably reflects oceanographic evolution of the Chukchi margin affected by the Beaufort Gyre circulation and Pacific water inflow via Bering Strait. Data for the last several centuries, with elevated values of brassicasterol and terrestrial sterols covarying with dinosterol and IP25, are interpreted in terms of long-distance import by currents combined with diagenetic transformations. We infer that high-amplitude variability in the late ‘Little Ice Age’, starting in the late 18th century, is related to the intensity of the Alaskan Coastal Current. This interval is preceded by three centuries of presumably diminished Alaskan Coastal Current but overall increased Bering Strait Inflow resulting in reduced sea-ice cover according to dinocyst-based data.

      • “It shows why the Arctic is likely to be a seasonal ocean very soon …”.
        ==============================================
        Circum-Arctic ocean temperatures at selected depths:

      • So, in terms of long timescale trends, debating the significance of short term fluctuations of surface temperature is pointless right? A distraction.

      • “So, in terms of long timescale trends, debating the significance of short term fluctuations of surface temperature is pointless right? A distraction …”.
        ======================
        Oh excuse me, I thought this thread was about the temperature trends this century so far, aka ‘pause’ or ‘no-pause’.

      • @Tony McLeod, just one question. Your first graph shows a negative “Global Ocean Heat Content” in 1970.

        What was negative heat content like in human terms?

      • Like the rest of the trolls, McClod changes definitions on the fly, based on what he’s trying to obscure at the moment.

  22. we need to bang our heads against the walls, in the face of so much stupidity.
    But Im busy otherwise, so Lets outsource this !

  23. Some consensus scientists, like Phil Jones, accepted the reality of the Plateau by 2009, if not before. Hence the dozens of excuses or trial explanations for it run up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted.

    Trenberth;s famous “travesty” remark was occasioned by the failure to explain the 2008 La Nina, and led to his trial balloon of heat hiding in the ocean depths. Getting it there of course would have required physics not previously observed elsewhere in the universe.

    • Quite so Chimp. Then Karl disappeared the pause and everybody lived happily ever after. Stay tuned for the next exciting episode where the barmy one reversed sea level rise, and everybody lived happily ever after.

    • Karl conveniently disappeared himself after his parting shot, fired in support of the Paris cabal.

      Shades of Hansen, getting out while the getting was good, as Mother Nature kept spanking his 1988 models.

  24. CO2 has no significant effect on climate and here is why:
    At a scale of the size of atoms, the atmosphere consists of gas molecules with empty space between them. Activity of the gas molecules determines what can be measured as temperature and pressure. Imagery of the activity of the molecules making up the atmosphere is helpful. Wikipedia, in the article on kinetic theory of gases, has a pretty good 2-D animation of the 3-D activity. It shows simulated molecules bouncing elastically off each other and the walls of the container. At any point in time, the speed (and energy) of the molecules ranges from zero to high values with the highest probability being towards lower energy.

    Emission of electromagnetic radiation from a solid or liquid surface complies with the Planck spectrum and Stephan-Boltzmann (T4) law. This also includes most particles of smoke and aerosols because they typically contain millions of molecules. Emission of radiation from gas molecules is entirely different. It is quantized and depends on the energy levels of individual molecules which are determined probabilistically according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution which favors lower energy photons. The average energy level of molecules in the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution depends on the temperature.

    Graphs of the probability distribution curve shape are shown in the Wikipedia article on Maxwell-Boltzmann. Molecules jostled to high enough energy for long enough time can emit a photon. This is called, for lack of a better term, reverse-thermalization. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is more highly populated at lower energy levels resulting in biasing the Planck spectrum radiation emitted by the surface to lower energies favored according to Maxwell-Boltzmann. This also results in the higher energy (shorter wavelength) photons absorbed by the CO2 being substantially redirected to the lower energy (longer wavelength) photons emitted by water vapor molecules. The process is progressively more pronounced as temperature declines with increasing altitude.

    Water vapor is the only significant greenhouse gas. What is happening, and humanity is probably contributing, is increasing water vapor. Average atmospheric water vapor is increasing more than twice as fast as it should be based on temperature increase alone (feedback). The ghg effect of that is countering the cooling that would otherwise be occurring. We will soon know if it is enough to prevent decent into another Little Ice Age . . . or worse. The physics is further described at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com which also explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate and identifies what does.

    • So we need to quit irrigating with and impounding ground water? Billions would starve and die of thirst, but that’s what Greens want, so it’s all good.

      Or we pull water out of the air and pump it back underground. The place to start doing this is on the US-Mexican border, to stop the drug tunnels. Also in Egypt, to protect the ancient art that is being destroyed by crop irrigation, although much of that is with river water.

      Of course, a warmer world with higher humidity is a better world, so why worry?

  25. The world has been warming since the middle of the LIA. It hasn’t been warming more quickly recently.
    The “CO2 roolz” believers have no explanation for why it hasn’t been warming more quickly recently.

    Therefore they try to claim:
    •The world is warming where we can’t see it (the Poles).
    •The world is warming where we can’t see it (the Oceans).
    •The world is warming where we can’t see it (the future – it’s coming soon).
    Or…
    •The world is warming but it’s not following CO2 as expected because El Ninos mask the effect.

    All of which are subtle ways of admitting that the models don’t reflect what the world actually does.
    The next step is to admit that the models are wrong because the assumptions are wrong.

    • Unfortunately a billion dollar academic and government enterprise relies upon the models, and a trillion dollar “renewable” industry depends upon the scare raised by the academic-government complex.

    • That next step of admitting the models are wrong is the step to end all steps is a big one. A very, very, very big step.

      My guess is that lotsa cash will be burned before the models are improved to the point where the assumptions are corrected. And of course if the cash burn stops then the cult will just know that proves they were right.

    • “The world has been warming since the middle of the LIA”

      THANK GOODNESS for that !!

      And the extra CO2 is totally and absolutely BENEFICIAL to all life on Earth.

  26. Checking the full paper, it seems that not only did they not include the satellite data, they did not even say why they were not including it.

    • Skeptics are the satellites only friends. Alarmists prefer the Hockey Stick chart.

      The satellite charts are not compatible with Alarmist theory. No “hotter and hotter and hotter” on the satellite chart. Nothing scary on the satellite chart. That’s not compatible with alarmist theory.

  27. Before Tom Karl et al messed with the data, even the New York Times acknowledged the slowdown in global warming. From an August, 2014 article:

    “There’s been a burst of worthy research aimed at figuring out what causes the stutter-steps in [global warming] — including the current hiatus/pause/plateau that has generated so much discussion. The oceans are high on the long list of contributors, given their capacity to absorb heat.”

    https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-closer-look-at-turbulent-oceans-and-greenhouse-heating/?_r=0

  28. Anthony/mods,

    OT and I apologize, and I know it’s not your fault (and maybe this comment should be posted somewhere else), but the the ads that keep forcing themselves on the screen are making these posts practically unreadable. I’m using Firefox. Is this an issue with other browsers, and is there anything a reader can do to limit/prevent it?

  29. Let’s see now, we have the cooling after a major El Nino plus near solar minimum effects at least for NH temps. Next up we have AMO run down plus solar minimum followed by more obvious AMO decline. Enjoy the next two cool decades ahead. Settled science will need a police state to enforce order during this episode.

  30. They point out that the data sets continue to show significant warming trends when the trend length exceeds 16 years. This is an obvious point when looking at the rise in global temperature seen in the years prior to the 1998 El Nino event. They should also look at Fig 1 again and bear in mind what I say about El Ninos.

    Well if 16 is good, how about 4 times that?
    https://i2.wp.com/micro6500blog.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/1940to2015.png?ssl=1&w=450
    It’s 4 times better right?

    • Bingo! In North America , Australia and other areas, the 1930’s were hotter than today. How was this possible with limited CO2 and no climate scientists to fudge data?

  31. What if it isn’t a pause but the topping out of a long-term natural cycle (around a thousand years) on which many other cycles ride (including el-nino/la-nina)?

    • All will be revealed fhhaynie. The extreme scenarios are that the Earth will turn into another Venus or that snowball earth will return. My guess is that in our lifetimes it will be somewhere in between.

      Mother Nature bats last.

    • IMO, it’s too soon for the Current Warm Period to top out. If the natural cycles are about 1000 years, peak to peak, and the Medieval WP peak occurred c. AD 1250, then we still have more than 200 years to go. If however its peak heat was c. AD 1000, then, yeah, it could be downhill from here.

      We’re due for another cyclic cooling phase within the secular warming trend of the past ~300 years, however. The long-term trend of the past 3000 to 5000 years remains down, down, down.

      • Just eyeballing the chart, it appears that the gaps between the warm periods has been shortening.

      • Maybe, but they’re still roughly a millennium.

        Holocene Climate Optimum ended c. 5 Ka; Egyptian WP c. 4 Ka; Minoan WP c. 3 Ka; Roman WP c. 3 Ka, and Medieval WP c. 1 Ka.

  32. Even without the Pause, the basic satellite-era trend of .2 degrees per decade is still deeply problematic for the models every year that it continues to not spike dramatically upward. The models always predict an increasing upward curvature in the near term, which is why the older models are generally more wrong. The absence of that predicted curve is more interesting.

  33. I always find it funny – the hiatus is exactly what you would expect to see if climate sensitivity = 0.

    Every single measurement we make indicates that the problem with global warming theory is that the level of climate sensitivity assumed in the equations was much, much too high. That number was always just a guess. And that guess is demonstrably wrong.

    And climate sensitivity = 0 is exactly what we should have always expected to be true. If the climate was highly sensitive to minor changes in a trace gas, then we would see, in the historical and fossil record, wild and rapid swings in temperatures. High climate sensitivity was always highly unlikely simply because complex, systems CAN’T be simultaneously highly sensitive and relatively stable.

    • Exactly right! They are throwing fits over weather. That’s how stupid we’ve become. It snowed last week but the CO2 must be higher today because it’s nice out again. We had a hiatus yesterday afternoon just when I thought the temperature was going to keep climbing to about 900 and kill us all. I guess the CO2 must have all gone over to the dark side.
      Honestly, how many more excuses can they have? And they refuse to recognize that Michael Mann produced a flat out fraud that is an embarrassment to science. It’s past time that other scientific disciplines speak up while science still has a reputation worth defending and we all have an economy that is functional.

  34. Sadly, most discussions of “the pause” are predicated on calculations of “the trend” without any understanding that it is a consistently meaningful metric if–and only if–the data series has the simple structure of linear trend plus random noise. That is far from the case with virtually all climate time-series, which contain multiple oscillatory modes of various bandwidths and central periods. The computed regressional trend thus is highly dependent not only upon the duration of the computation, but also upon its start-time. It can be shown that, in the general case, it’s NOT a consistent measure of SECULAR trend, but merely the output of a very crude band-pass filter.

    Contrary to the simplistic conceptual model of linear regression, climate is changing CONTINUALLY. Without circumspect specification of duration and start-time, the notions of “trend” and/or “pause” become vaguely meaningless.

    • No significant warming for 20 years under steadily accelerating CO2 accumulation in the air, on top of over 50 previous years of the same, however further falsifies the already repeatedly falsified hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism. Even 15 years are probably long enough to do so.

    • “predicated on calculations of “the trend” without any understanding that it is a consistently meaningful metric if–and only if–the data series has the simple structure of linear trend plus random noise.”
      That’s not true. The trend is an estimator of the derivative of the underlying secular curve. And it’s not true that derivatives are only meaningful for straight lines.

      Of course a derivative estimate can be upset by oscillations etc. And trend is not the best possible estimator. But it isn’t meaningless.

      • Only a mathematical inept would use linear trends on a chaotic cyclic system as any sort of predictor.

        But that’s Nick and the AGW bandwagon for you.

      • Well said, Nick. Your support of the AGW hypothesis in the face of the hiatus is not meaningless . Just nearly so.

      • Trend IS meaningless at climate scale. It depends entirely on the period selected.

        “as Meehl et al said in Nature Climate Change, “Longer-term externally forced trends in global mean surface temperatures are embedded in the background noise of internally generated multidecadal variability.”

        An apology that proves the point. “Embedded in the background noise” is apology splainin’ for “we got the period wrong”.

      • The trend is an estimator of the derivative of the underlying secular curve.

        Nonsense! The derivative of an analytic function is defined at each and every POINT, not over some substantial INTERVAL of a random function. In discrete-time signal analysis, there are well-known estimators of the derivative–none of which involve the regressional trend. It’s only in “climate science” that such essential distinctions are unrecognized. Leave it to rabid polemicists to leave out the important qualifier of “[w]ithout circumspect specification of duration and start-time” in my characterization of unspecified trends as “vaguely meaningless.”

      • 1sky1
        “The derivative of an analytic function is defined at each and every POINT, not over some substantial INTERVAL of a random function.”
        But for a numerically defined function it is found as Newton defined it, as a limit of secants (or some other difference approach). How do you think ODes are solved?

        Proof of regression as derivative is here. more
        here and here

      • Nick Stokes:

        The limiting value of VANISHINGLY short secants should never be confused with the secant value of over SUBSTANTIAL, let alone long, intervals. Quoting your own, mathematically non-rigorous, musings about regressional trends and differentiation proves nothing beyond ineptitude in signal analysis. The fact remains that differentiation is strictly a high-pass operator, whereas the regressional trend is demonstrably a BAND-pass operator. The stark difference in frequency response is not just quantitative, but also qualitative.

    • Wait a few years and NOAA &. NASA will gradually “adjust” the current temperatures because they don’t match their CO2 greenhouse theory.

      Today’s flat trend will morph into tomorrow’s rising trend.

      In fact real-time data should be ignored for 20 years until all the proper “adjustments” are made.

  35. To paraphrase John Cook — “We find that of all of abstracts who expressed a position on the AGW temperature pause, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that the pause has occurred.”

    That’s basically how he conducted his science, right? There is no real science, you only have to read abstracts.

    • Abstracts often make claims never proven in the study summarized, to get attention I suppose.
      Only a fool or liar would use an abstract to evaluate a study.

  36. Anyone heard about the “record crop loss” due to unusually colder temperatures? Or the record breaking snow fall or the global warming demonstration being snowed out in Denver?

  37. Has anyone heard about crop loss due to unprecedented cold? Record breaking cold temps Worldwide? Or warmest demonstration being snowed out in Denver?

  38. As well as the pause from 2001-2015, there was only a pause between 1980 and 1997 in both satellite data set, the slight upward linear trend only existing because of the phase of the cycles.

  39. I do so hope that the NCSE’s subscription is up to date as in:

    “….Q: Still, shouldn’t there be some explanation for the slowing? [the pause]

    Yes, there should be, and while scientists are still trying to understand the details, the basic explanation almost certainly goes as follows…. blah blah blah”

    Here they say (paraphrase) there are two sides to the story “….But on the other hand they make it clear that there is a real event that needs studying….”.

    Hey but the NCSE reckons the explanation is almost a certainty.

    That is why this whole farce is far from over.

  40. “I will leave it to the reader to calculate the trend, and the error of the trend for the same period using other global surface temperature data sets.”
    From start 2001 to end 2013 (which seems to be the period here):
    HADCRUT 0.063 +-0.602 C/cen
    GISS 0.506 +- 0.734
    NOAA 0.509 +- 0.652
    BEST 0.468 +- 0.863
    C&W 0.489 +- 0.783

    It’s a fairly HADCRUT-specific pause period, for the reasons shown in Cowtan and Way’s 2013 paper. HADCRUT lacks Arctic data and uses a crude grid-cell method.

    As to the inclusion of 2015-6, that is just part of the data sequence, just as was the big dip in 2011-13, which is responsible for the above reduced trends.

    • Those “data series” are packs of lies. If perpetrated in the private sector instead of at the public trough, all would be actionable instances of blatant fr@ud.

      • Chimp
        “Those “data series” are packs of lies. If perpetrated in the private sector instead of at the public trough, all would be actionable instances of blatant fr@ud.”
        Really… then why has no one been able to refute it? Many have tried, most look foolish, but none have been successful. Really Chimp, your only defence is to yell “lies and fraud” with no evidence whats so ever to back up your mind numbingly boring assertion. Very sad really. Like the child who hides his face and thinks no one can see him.

    • Three decimal places for average temperature data?

      False precision.

      A propaganda technique.

      Did someone drop you on your head as a child Mr. Stokes?

      You must be kidding!

      • Reply to Nicky Stocks comment on May 4 at 4:36

        RG: “Three decimal places for average temperature data?”

        NS” “It isn’t average temperature data. It is trend, in °C/Century.”

        They were average temperature data.

        It doesn’t matter if presented as an actual temperature, an anomaly, or a trend.

        You presented it in three decimal places.

        That is false precision.

        Grossly false precision.

        Two decimal places would be false precision,

        If you don’t realize that,then you don’t understand the quality of data you are working with.

        Go back to school and learn how to present data accurately, without bias or false precision,

    • From above… “HADCRUT 0.063 +-0.602 C/cen’ ? So the error margin is larger than the anomaly ? LOL

      • “So the error margin is larger than the anomaly ?”
        For heaven’s sake, can’t you read. It isn’t the anomaly. It’s a trend calculated over a short period. Of course it has uncertainty.

      • “For heaven’s sake, can’t you read.”
        Reading and understanding are different things, Nick.

      • Butch on May 4, 2017 at 4:37 pm

        HADCRUT 0.063 +-0.602 C

        That’s the problem you always encounter when you compute trends over too small periods!

        Kevin Cowtan is even a bit more severe in the trend, and a bit more insightful wrt uncertainty :-)
        This trend has no significance at all.

    • So Nick, if the warming is Arctic based then it isn’t global. In fact, it is strong evidence the AMO is the cause of the warming.

    • Richard M on May 4, 2017 at 7:26 pm
      So Nick, if the warming is Arctic based then it isn’t global.
      Nick Stokes never told us that ‘the warming is Arctic based’. He tells us that Arctic’s warmth is underrepresented in the global HadCRUT4 record. That is true.
      In the UAH record for example, it is not underrepresented:
      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170506/yr8brcvo.jpg
      UAH6.0 trend for 1979-2016 (2 σ) in °C / decade:
      – 60N – 82.5N: 0.26 ± 0,02
      – 80N – 82.5N: 0.42 ± 0.04
      In fact, it is strong evidence the AMO is the cause of the warming.
      You never get tired to write that; but you also never brought any numbers nor even a simple chart to substantiate your narrative.
      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170506/3xgd7izl.jpg
      Sources:
      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
      http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/

      • Oooh my bad, text mode! No one sees my so pretty beautiful pics! Je suis inconsolable :-)

      • Richard M on May 6, 2017 at 8:11 am

        Mea culpa, Richard M, I presented a chart with unscaled AMO data, it was late yesterday night (WUWT+9). Today evening I immediately saw the nonsense.

        Thanks for the NCAR/UCAR plot, but it isn’t helpful at all: what I expect is that you show us at least a correlation between temperatures and AMO. To prove a causation is a much harder job I guess.

        But I’m generous, Richard M, and did the correlation job for you :-)

        Caution when comparing here AMO with the NCAR/UCAR plot: it is undetrended, monthly and baselined wrt 1981-2010.

        First step: the corrected graph comparing AMO with GHCN V3 unadjusted Arctic (60N-82.5N):

        Here, the correlation is all but evident! And as a recurring part of your narrative is that AMO is the driver of Arctic’s warmth, it was difficult to accept this correlation.

        Then I compared the undetrended AMO with Japans‘ JMA Globe data:

        Here indeed we see a better correlation between AMO and temperatures, which however becomes first really strong in the 1970ies.

        The next step: undetrended AMO with JMA Globe, NH and SH data:

        Similar situation, with the exception that the NH/SH split interestingly reveals a steep NH escape after 1998.

        Thus I hamlet here a bit: to agree or not to agree, that’s the question! Ich bin gespalten…

        It would be interesting to see Santer, Bonfils & al. continuing the job they began in 2014, by extracting AMO out of a (this time hopefully surface) temperature series like they did with ENSO and volcanoes for RSS TLT, and to look at the residual again.

      • What I have found is min temp follows dew point, and dew points follow ocean generated water vapor.

        The causation is water vapor regulates cooling in the middle of the night.

      • Bindidon, how accurate is the Arctic data before 1950? The error bars are probably bigger than any squiggles you provided. Sorry, but sometimes we just don’t have enough good data.

    • ..Nice catch…..I bet Nicky lives on the beach also…(just so he can warn all of us when the SLR starts accelerating !)

    • “from one of Trump’s Cabinet Picks”
      Does he have inside knowledge of what they are planning for us?

      I live at about 50m altitude, which should be safe for a while.

  41. Since the real climate measurements do not match the simulated climate measurements then the real climate measurements must be wrong because the simulated climate measurements were generated by computer and computers are infallable. Mother Nature cannot be trusted and must be forced to abide by what has been simulated. In terms of climate justice, Mother Nature is at fault and the legal system should force Mother Nature to pay damages.

  42. Snow is a good cross check of the veracity of temperature datasets. Which is pretty reasonable since ice melts at 0 degrees C. That is not something that needs adjustment.

    So what is snow saying?

    Nope no trends much. Looks like it has been pretty flat since about 1995 if a regression line could be added. Certainly looks nothing like an inverted GISS.

    From here.

    • “Snow is a good cross check of the veracity of temperature datasets. “
      It isn’t. It’s a measure of how much precipitation there was when the temperature was below 0°C.

      Minneapolis is plenty cold in winter. But it gets less snow than, say, Albany, NY.

      • Nick,

        That’s true most winters. It doesn’t matter for the whole hemisphere or continent, as should be obvious.

        Snow stays longer when the winters are harder. It’s a far better indicator of climate change than the made up “surface data sets”.

      • Ok Nick. Explain the graph then please.
        That is what scientists are supposed do, after all.
        I have been a professional R&D scientist for more than 3 decades.
        I could take your hypothesis to the logical inference but I’d rather hear what you have to say in defense of your comment.

      • Bruce
        “Explian the graph”
        It shows snow diminishing since the 70’s. That could be partly due to warming reducing the amount of days snow could fall. And/or partly due to those remaining days being drier.

      • Nick

        “It shows snow diminishing since the 70’s. That could be partly due to warming reducing the amount of days snow could fall. And/or partly due to those remaining days being drier.”

        or could be showing snow returning to the trend it was at prior to the cooling period during the 70s

      • Nick – You haven’t explained the pause in snow cover anomaly. I noted that the trend from 1995 to today is flat – which is consistent with the TLT satellite and balloon data but not the GISS dataset.

        That you chose to instead say ‘look, squirrel’ means you are being less than candid. Which indicates to me that you agree with what I wrote. That is the logical inference of such an attempted misdirection.

    • Bruce of Newcastle on May 4, 2017 at 4:20 pm / May 5, 2017 at 3:21 pm

      Snow is a good cross check of the veracity of temperature datasets. Which is pretty reasonable since ice melts at 0 degrees C. That is not something that needs adjustment.

      Aha. Interesting! You do not seem to look very often at temperature datasets.

      And I confess that I never had at snow fall! Many thanks for motivating me to download Rutgers‘ NH snow data. It will feef pretty good in a file near Colorado’s sea ice extent :-)

      So what is snow saying?

      This, Bruce of Newcastle:

      I noted that the trend from 1995 to today is flat…

      You clearly see here that, as opposed to UAH’s trend which experiences, starting with 1995, less warming than since 1979, the snowfall really has a continuously flat trend.

      BTW, UAH’s trend for the Globe, when starting with 1995, isn’t really flat: 0.08 °C /decade instead of -0.05 for the snow; and, as we don’t consider here worldwide snowfall but that in NH, we should compare these -0.05 with UAH NH’s trend, which is 0.11 °C /decade.

      Certainly looks nothing like an inverted GISS.

      Indeed! But you will sure notice that Rutgers‘ and Huntsville’s running means really look like mirrored along the bisector of their linear estimates. That looks pretty good controversial.

      And if you compute the linear estimate for the entire Ruttgers dataset, you see that the snowfall trend when starting by november 1966 is even far lower than that when starting by december 1978: 0.51 ± 0.29 °C / decade.

  43. The graph below shows the basic arithmetic of the “pause”. It shows anomalies of HADCRUT 4, with a 12-month running mean, but as displacements from the 2001-2013 mean shown in green. If there were to be a pause in the future, that green line would be close to the trend. To the right end, each red blob pulls the trend up according to its area, and blue pulls it down. The effects are the opposite at the left end.

    So the pause reflects the coincidence of two blue blobs around 2008 and 2012. In 2013, they were pulling the trend down. But they are now near the middle, where they have neutral effect. What has pulled the trends up is the big red at the end. And it would take a similar big blue to bring it back again.

    • Nick,

      Are you serious?

      Where is the El Nino of 1998?

      Also, do you really consider HadCRU’s cooked books to be valid scientific data?

      Sad.

      • Chimp,
        I’m covering the period specified here, starting 2001. And yes, HADCRUT is valid data, although I think their methods could be improved..

        I calculate global temperature from the raw GHCN data. It makes little difference.

      • Nick,

        What a hoot!

        That’s like saying that the methods of astrology could be improved.

        The only acceptable method is the scientific one, in which every aspect of HadCRU is in violation.

        Their “series” is not even remotely scientific, because it’s results aren’t repeatable, the dog having eaten their “data”.

        It would be a joke, if only so many trillions in treasure and millions of lives had not been squandered as a result of their corruption.

      • Chimp,
        “Their “series” is not even remotely scientific, because it’s results aren’t repeatable, the dog having eaten their “data”.”
        Nonsense. It’s all here. Go for it.

      • “Show all the station data they used for 1880 to 2000.”
        It’s all there, with sources cited. None of which depends on data which was stored in the 1980’s.

        But all this is rather pointless. The head post made claims based on HADCRUT 4. I am answering those claims based on the data cited.

      • Chimp,
        From your link
        “The station records on which the gridded CRUTEM4 dataset is built are available in ascii format in this archive: CRUTEM.4.5.0.0.station_files.zip. This archive contains all station records used to build the CRUTEM4 dataset.”
        That is saying that it is all there. And it is. I know that well, because I did a complete temperature recon with the station data here.

      • Nick thankyou for that link.
        It includes the sequence “crutem3” rather than crutem4, is that significant?

        Also the 2nd comment (which I place here with your permission I hope) is:

        AnonymousAugust 1, 2011 at 11:38 AM
        Done

        http://stevemosher.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/cru-data-in-rghcnv3/

        Also a bit warmer. I’m wondering if we have source data and not adjusted data. In anycase when I add in the ocean ( which I match perfectly ) the differences will be mousenuts

        Steve appears to be suggesting that the data used is adjusted. Did you ever get the source?

        regards,
        Colin

      • Colin,
        CRUTEM 3 is what was current at the time. But the availability of station data hasn’t changed. And as your Mosh link shows, various people have been able to use it to get an index consistent with each other and with CRUTEM.

        CRU do not apply a homogenisation procedure, but they use some data that has been adjusted by the source organisation.

    • For the desperately incredulous and embittered Chimp

      Here is a link to a page presented by Google:

      http://www.thegwpf.com/crutem4-global-warming-and-the-arctic/

      Source: the Global Warming Policy Foundation
      Date: 15/03/2012
      Author: David Whitehouse

      Maybe you start to learn all what you don’t know by reading that page, instead of insulting and discrediting all the time these people who work in institutions responsible for surface temperature management, who probably all are by far more intelligent than you are, Chimp.

      Here is the chart showing the differences between CRUTEM3 and CRUTEM4, the main origin of the difference between HadCRUT4 and HadCRUT3 (deprecated since 2014):


      (Courtesy Clive Best)

      Maybe you will have enough courage to continue, e.g. by reading
      http://tinyurl.com/jvtetdo
      This the paper of Phil Jones et alii. Try to read it, instead of repeating mailgate nonsense you don’t have even half a bit of clue about!

  44. Thanks Nick. I was going to point out that there has been no scientifically-significant T change over the hiatus, from any honest dataset, nor the gerrymandered ones except for Karl. But you have pretty well done it for me.
    What I do ask those here, is how come 95% confidence level is ever accepted in any weather data referred to as scientific?

  45. Oops – for @ Nick Stokes
    May 4, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    “I will leave it to the reader to calculate the trend, and the error of the trend for the same period using other global surface temperature data sets.”
    From start 2001 to end 2013 (which seems to be the period here):
    HADCRUT 0.063 +-0.602 C/cen
    GISS 0.506 +- 0.734
    NOAA 0.509 +- 0.652
    BEST 0.468 +- 0.863
    C&W 0.489 +- 0.783
    The hiatus is figured running back in time as far as it actually does, of course.

  46. I don’t see any evidence that global warming has paused.

    Here’s a chart showing a 360 month moving average of global temperature anomalies over the period Jan. 1880 to Feb. 2017. Judge for yourself if you think it looks like that line has flattened out in recent years. http://i.imgur.com/IQoiRG5.png

    Here’s a chart showing the rate of change of global temperature anomalies, expressed as a decadal (120 month) rate, calculated over consecutive 360 month periods on data covering the period Jan. 1880 to Feb. 2017. http://i.imgur.com/go49NMO.png If global warming had truly paused, that blue line should be approaching 0. Instead it has been hovering close to its highest value, set in Nov. and Dec. 2013 of +0.194°C/decade (it currently stands at +0.178°C/decade). So according to this analysis, while it might be possible to say that the rate of warming appears in the short term to have stopped increasing, and that the current rate by this measure is 0.016°C below the record highest value, it is none the less quite close to the fastest rate in recorded history. It also renders the claim that global warming has paused rather absurd.

    And finally, here’s a chard showing a regression of global temperature anomalies on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. http://i.imgur.com/Qs7PAY2.png No pause in warming is evident on that chart either.

    • Apparently you’re unaware the the allegedly historical temperature “data sets” upon which you’re relying at totally fake, cooked books.

      • They are cooked because they are.

        Just compare NOAA’s reconstruction in the 1970s from the 1880s with what it looks like now. The adjustments are unwarranted and all in the direction to support the narrative.

        The book cookers have admitted what they do and discussed it in emails.

    • Thank you marmocet. It is the best trial I have seen to find a function between temperatures and CO2. Sorry that it is not appreciated here.

      • “… the best trial I have seen to find a function between temperatures and CO2 …”.
        ===================================
        Here’s a better one, CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years:

      • Chris Hanley, could you either update your chart or find one that reflect’s today’s 400 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2? There doesn’t seem to be a temperature spike 800 years ago that would be high enough to push CO2 to 400 ppm.

      • I wouldn’t suggest that the MWP was the sole cause of the current CO2 trend but it may be a contributing factor, no-one knows for sure.
        My point is that the graph posted by marmoset was a clever piece of chairmanship that suggests a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature which doesn’t exist in the reliable instrumental record,
        e.g.

        As has been pointed out the surface record has been constantly adjusted to exaggerate that spurious direct relationship:

      • The graph of adjustments does not address the fundamental problem you have with your assertion that “CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years.” Try to focus on what you posted, because 400 ppm today makes your assertion FALSE and no amount of trying to change the subject matters.

      • Chartmanship not chairmanship.
        Are you claiming that the CO2 concentration does not lag temperature in the ice core record?

      • Chris, your chart does not show 400 ppm. Therefore it is not applicable to what is happening today. Technically, yes, because of today’s 400 ppm of CO2, and the fact that your chart shows no temperature spike 800 years ago capable of producing 400 ppm, we can surmise that today’s CO2 is not lagging temperature.

      • The Ice core temperature data are very low resolution while the CO2 data is at much lower resolution more of a moving average but the fact remains CO2 appears to precede temperature by around 800 years (+ or -).
        Plant stomata show much greater fluctuations compared to ice cores over recent centuries.
        In paleo-studies CO2 shows no correlation with temperature.
        If you want to learn more read this:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
        Marmoset’s graph is clever chartmanship but like most CAGW propoganda simplistic and highly misleading.

      • One will notice that enargpia has perfected pedantry.

        He tries to refute the proven, historical record by pointing out that the present trend doesn’t match that record.
        He doesn’t deal with why the present may not match the past, that’s not his goal.
        Disruption, confusion and obfuscation.
        That’s his only goal.

    • What is totally lacking here is any comprehension of the simple analytic fact that the 360-month moving average LAGS the underlying signal by exactly 180 months. In other words, the MA result for 2016 expresses the smoothed value for 2004.. Yet another demonstration of the “competence” of AGW-fixated data analysts.

      • 1sky1 – Moving averages reflect all the information they incorporate. A slowdown in warming would be immediately apparent in a 360 period moving average. This is easy to demonstrate.

        Self described skeptics like to claim that there hasn’t been any global warming since February 1997. See here for example: http://www.cfactcampus.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/No-warming-18-years-9-months.png

        That claim is easy to test. Here’s a chart showing global temperature anomalies from Jan. 1979 to Jan. 1997, along with the linear warming trend plus and minus two standard deviations of the regression errors. http://i.imgur.com/y9A8ZL3.png If global warming did indeed halt starting in February 1997, then all of the subsequent temperature data should cluster around the horizontal blue trendline, with about 50% of it being above that line, about 50% below it, and about 98% of it between the blue dashed lines that form the 2 standard error channel. Alternatively, the data might show warming continued along the same trend established over the period Jan. 1979 to Jan. 1997. In that case, the temperature data for the period Feb. 1997 to Mar. 2017 should cluster around the red line, with 50% of it being above the trendline, 50% below it, and about 98% of it falling within the 2 standard error channel marked by the red dashed lines.

        So what happened? This chart – http://i.imgur.com/sCtqEtY.png – shows that almost every single monthly temperature anomaly came in above the blue “warming pause” trendline, and perhaps as much as half of it is also above the upper 2 standard error line as well. So global warming didn’t pause. The fact that most of the data points are also above the red trend line and far more than 2% of them are above the red 2 standard error line shows that the rate of warming actually accelerated relative to the 01.79-01.97 trend.

        So there was no pause. Global warming actually sped up. But what would the chart have looked like if there really had been a pause in global warming from 02.97 to 03.17? That’s fairly easy to illustrate as well, as I show in this chart: http://i.imgur.com/poVlnHb.png. Find the new trend for the period 02.97 to 03.17, then subtract that trend out of the data to get the residuals, then recenter them by adding the value of the Y intercept of the “no warming” trendline (~ 0.33°C). Then substitute this detrended, recentered data for the original data and you get this: http://i.imgur.com/claypLD.png That’s what a chart that shows no warming from 02.97 to 03.17 looks like.

        And now that I have that adjusted data, I can show you that your comment about the 360 period moving average is complete nonsense. This chart shows the 360 period moving average based on the actual temperature data, shown here covering the period 01.79 to 03.17: http://i.imgur.com/p1GKJew.png And here’s a chart Showing two 360 period moving averages, one calculated using the real temperature data and the other calculated using the detrended and recentered data for the period 02.97 to 03.17: http://i.imgur.com/fZzy6MU.png As you can see, the MA calculated for the “warming pause” scenario does exactly what I said it would – it immediately diverges from the MA based on the real temperature data and quickly flattens out as it approaches the “warming pause” temperature mean of about 0.33 °C.

        The same goes for the chart showing the decadal rate of change calculated from consecutive 360 month periods. Here’s the chart spanning 01.79 to 03.17 that shows the calculation based on the actual temperature data: http://i.imgur.com/L1x29GQ.png. And here’s a chart showing what happens when I make the same calculations using the 02-97-03-17 data that I detrended and recentered to simulate a pause in global warming: http://i.imgur.com/lNdlU4Y.png Again, it shows exactly what I said it would. If global warming had actually paused, the 360 month rate of change would have steadily approached zero.

        So yes, someone here lacks competence when it comes to basic statistical analysis, but it isn’t me.

      • marmocet:

        I’ve learned the hard way not to waste time arguing with computational wonks, who generalize from specific numerical examples without any clear grasp of the underlying universal analytic truths. It’s the latter that I addressed in my comment. The fact that you fail to recognize the well-known universal phase-lag of moving averages is revealing; the fact that you fail to note that in your example http://i.imgur.com/L1x29GQ.png the regressional slope coefficient tops out in 2004 is disturbing. But your ultimate claim that

        If global warming had actually paused, the 360 month rate of change would have steadily approached zero

        is totally damning. Enough said!

  47. Is it really a “pause” though? That implies the warming will continue at some point. I’ve seen no concrete evidence that it will.

    • That’s why I prefer “plateau”, ie a relatively flat terrain from which a traveler could either go up or down.

      • Nope. Plateau.

        Shelf implies that there was practically no statistically significant warming previously, which might be more accurate, but I’m willing to grant the Warmunistas 1977-97.

        Shelves are barely above MSL. A plateau could be significantly higher.

      • Tony, you blithering ignoramus. Apparently you are as ignorant of geography and geology as of every other scientific discipline.

        Plateaus in the real world go up more often than down. Dunno on which continent your eke out your miserable existence, but here in North America, plateau lands are famous for coming before further uplands. I live on one, called the Columbia Plateau, which after leveling off, subsequently rises to the Blue Mountains.

        Please try to join us in the real world. Thanks.

      • Your insults are unpersausive.

        Describing the shape of the graph as plateau-like will only be true if temperatures start steeply falling away for a decade or. Good luck with that.

        I think is more like shelf: it rose steadily for years, leveled of for a while before resuming the rise.

        I could post a link to a definition of plateau but it might have been adjusted.

      • “I think is more like shelf: it rose steadily for years”

        Only in the bogus computer models of the manipulators.

      • Tony,

        Sorry for the insult, but it appears that you’re thinking of a mesa, ie table.

        Plateaus typically end in mountains.

  48. It is not prudent to analyse the global temperature curves because there are inputs to them of uncertain magnitude and timing.
    If the curves were good enough to guide national policies, their authors would be able to untangle them into the sub-curves that show the magnitude and timing of all candidate suspects. This would cover CO2 and other GHG separately, geometric effects like precession, various cloud effects, ocean heat redistributions and more plus of course natural variation conveyed by some of the above.
    As yet, there is no way good enough for policy to separate natural from anthro, so it is premature to compose and use such graphs, except for the usual purpose of scientific inquiry.
    It is pointless to blog on about guesses and opinions until there is much better understanding of fundamental causes of variation. It is just fairly useless gossip. Geoff.

    • But it there was some evidence that discharging a chemical into a waterway was causing fish-kills the most prudent stategy to find out if that chemical was a cause, over and above natural variation, would be to keep discharging?

      • Tony,

        Not a meaningful analogy, because there is no evidence that humans are having a measurable effect on global temperature, which can’t be measured anyway, nor that any such effect, if real, is a bad thing.

        So far, four molecules of plant food per 10,000 dry air molecules instead of the three a century ago has been an unalloyed good thing.

      • Without wishing to be facetious it might depend on the value of the process generating the chemical.

      • Wow! No evidence that CO2 does anything remotely like that.

        What a ridiculous straw man argument you make. Do you not see how ignorant that makes you appear?

        I’m guessing not.

      • HAS
        Without wishing to be facetious it might depend on the value of the process generating the chemical.
        Lol if it wasn’t true.

      • tony, at the time I was vaguely contemplating a process that produced chemicals that saved millions of fish more than it killed :).

        Precaution is a difficult game to play.

      • Since there is no evidence that CO2 is causing a problem, much less killing fish, why do anything beyond study it more?

      • No tony we would have unequivocal evidence in your analogy of poisoned fish, like we did when the EPA did just that.
        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/09/navajo-nation-epa-spill/31384515/
        Real scientists have been asking for the smoking gun evidence that CAGW is real. The sum total of what we get is “What else could it be?” Well we replied, that you had no warming for a period as long as the period of warming that your scientists were agitating about while CO2 rose 30% of the total rise since the industrial revolution. Yes It warmed 1980-1998 from the trough of a cooling decline that had started in 1945, a decline that had some of your same scientists of today agitating about a coming ice age also caused by humans. Today, they spin and conflate for laymen like you, an undisputed period of warming with an end-of-the-world warming. They lie about us d*nying it has warmed to heap another layer of opaqueness.

        Did you know rhe”pause” caused a number of warming proponent scientists to suffer career-ending clinical depression popularly known as the Climate Blues? They understood what such a pause meant for them. I feel sorry for them because these were honest believers in the theory. How would you feel to wake up one morning and know half or all your career, your university studies, thesis and publications was a waste. It’s also a powerful motivation for many to cling and spin and hide their eyes and plug their ears and hermetically seal their minds, and yes, cheat. Com’on tony, be honest with yourself. You didn’t make this mess. Do some thinking of your own. Suspend belief and see where it might take you. It could be the most rewarding time of your life.

    • “It is pointless to blog on about guesses and opinions until there is much better understanding of fundamental causes of variation.”

      What is to the point is your point that we need a better understanding of the fundamentals, and this is worthy of being repeated daily in every venue.

      • TA, we’re it not for such bloggers pushing unwanted honest information into the faces of this Nouveau Monde toталiтаяуаи movement , you would be in danger of being selected for rehabilitation, attitude adjustments and a re-education to the trills of a mandolin in hard labor camp. This not about science my boy/girl.

  49. I hate to say that, David, but the hiatus is really a cooling period. It is easy to convince yourself of that by using the current UAH temperature chart which Roy Spencer puts out monthly. I can’t paste it here so you will have to retrieve it for yourself. People do weird things with such temperature charts but actually analyzing what is in it is almost practically never done. I will have to explain something about it before we analyze what it shows. First, on this single chart there are four independent happenings. The first one on the left runs from 1979 to 1997 .It is a hiatus period of 18 years as I proved in my book in 2010. IPCC does not think so and transmogrified it into a non-existent warming. Fortunately they still do not control satellites and the hiatus can still be seen in satellite records. Next in line is the super El Nino of 1998. It takes up a narrow slice from years 1997 to 1999. When it pulled out again it left behind it a large chunk of warm waster. That warm water caused an almost instantaneous heating: in only yjree years, from 1999 to 2002, it raised global temperature by 0.3 degrees Celsius. , it That was peak warming from it and what followed was cooling because there was no more heat coming from the super El Nino. Cooling was slow at first and with the background noise the next six years looked to many like it might be a hiatus. It was also hard to see where the temperature was going because first the La Nina of 2008 and then the El Nino of 2010 were covering up the view of the background. I did no take another look until the next El Nino (of 2016) had started and then realized that the end of the cooling curve was finally free of interference. And just in time, because after 2012 the buildup to the 2016 El Nino took over the display. But enough was visible so that you caoulduse a ruler to draw a straight line that slopes down from year 2002 and 0.22 degrees Celsius to year 2012 and 0.05 degrees Celsius. That is a temperature drop of 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade. You can extrapolate it further just to see what is ahead of us.It looks to me like by the time the 2016 El Ninos is all gone we are going to have a global temperature level a tenth of a degree below the zero degree line that Roy Spencer uses on this graph. Probably the warm water that the super El Nino left behind is finished its cooling by then and the ground temperature more than likely will revert to what it was in the eighties and nineties. And that’s the story of just one month from the archives of USB as tended by Roy Spencer.

    • Arno,

      Please, I’m beggin’ ya, do as so many have asked for so many years and learn how to form paragraphs.

      Thanks.

    • “Fortunately they still do not control satellites and the hiatus can still be seen in satellite records.”

      And we are happy about that! The alarmists hate it. They don’t like things that make their CAGW theories look bad.

  50. According to Fred Singer, and backed by Marine night time temps as well as satellite data and balloon data, the second warming phase after the 1970s is fake. Artifact of analysis.

    Only the surface station data sets (which nearly all of rely on 1 data set) are the only ones to show pronounced late 20th century warming of significance.

    So it is fair to say most warming of the 20th century happened by 1940, and there has been little warming since.

    • To clarify 8 data sets support Fred’s conclusion. Essentially 2 data sets disagree (CRU NECI are two separate data sets?)

      • TA, it would be fair to say that most of the warming happened prior to 1940, and almost all of the increase in CO2 happened after 1940.
        CO2 is so powerful it’s affects can be felt backwards through time.

    • “So it is fair to say most warming of the 20th century happened by 1940, and there has been little warming since.”

      I would say there is no warming since 1934. According to Hansen, 1934 was the hottest year, being 0.5C hotter than 1998 (see chart), which also makes 1934 hotter than 2016. The U.S. and the world have been in a temperature downtrend since 1934.

      https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

      And from a quote from the above posted NASA article:

      “How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the “answer” is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far.”

      Does anyone other than Hansen and his fellow alarmists believe that the U.S. and the rest of the Earth “follow a different course” when it comes to temperature? I think that is absurd, and the evidence available also says it is absurd.

      Unaltered temperature charts from all over the Earth are similar to the Hansen U.S. temperature chart, and NONE of them are similar to the bogus surface temperature charts. What does that tell you?

      Hansen should be required to prove that the U.S. and the Earth have different temperature profiles. And showing a bogus global surface temperature chart is not any proof at all.

      • Unaltered temperature charts from all over the Earth are similar to the Hansen U.S. temperature chart, and NONE of them are similar to the bogus surface temperature charts. What does that tell you?

        I think the series have evolved into something different, they are not the same. BEST, as Mosh has said, they basically calculate a climate field, not the temps, as that has weather in it. They remove weather. There use to be “classifications” for regional climate. It seem that’s more what BEST is than what I produce, which is an average of station data, temps and anomalies. It almost seems they are just pulling the signal out of the data they want. Like a statue out of a block of marble, the statue is in there just waiting to be revealed. They show the warming they just “know” is there once they get rid of all of the noise in the data. It’s science ya’no!

  51. The pause ended not because of gradual global warming but because of a natural weather event whose temporary increased rate of global warming was far too large to be anthropogenic.

    It could equally be argued that the ‘pause’ started as a result of a natural temporary weather event: the 1997/98 El Niño. If you consider a period shorter than 20 years and you start counting from the peak of one big El Niño and stop counting before the onset of the next one then guess what – you get a “pause”. Equally, if you start counting from the trough of La Niña and stop counting at the peak of an El Niño you can get a nice ‘acceleration’.

    Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to remove the effects of both strong El Niño periods and figure out what the underlying long term trend is. I’m not sure how to do that in a refined way statistically, but a crude way might be to just discount all monthly anomalies between the two big El Niños. It should give us a rough indication.

    I’ve tried that using HadCRUT4, as David Whitehouse does above, and going back 30 years, which he describes as “the nominal 30-year basic climate assessment period”. The trend in that period without excluding either strong El Niño event is 0.17 C/dec warming. When you exclude the two big El Niño periods the trend remains 0.17 C/dec warming.

    Just to be clear, I started the series at April 1987 (30 years exactly before March 2017, the latest HadCRUT4 monthly temperature update) then discounted the monthly values between April 1997 and June 1998, and again between October 2014 and July 2016 (the respective start and end months of the centred 3-month average El Niño periods according to NOAA).

    There is no difference, to 2 decimal places, in the HadCRUT4 warming trend over the past 30 years whether you include the months affected by the big large El Niño periods or whether you discount them. Now ‘that’ is revealing.

    • Incidentally, I did the same thing with UAH and got similar results. Warming of 0.11 C/dec over the past 30 years with the months containing the El Niños included; warming of 0.10 C/dec with them taken out.

      • DWR54 on May 5, 2017 at 1:06 am / 1:32 am

        This is absolutely correct as far as UAH(6.0) is concerned: I did the same little exercise, and it shows.

        From April 1987 till March 2017: 0.10 °C / decade for UAH minus El Niños, and 0.11 °C for UAH.

        But I’m not sure that the method is 100 % correct; one should eliminate out of the UAH records not those anomalies within the ENSO periods, but rather those with a 4 month lag. But I don’t think that the difference will be perceptible.

        It would be interesting to find a simple layman’s way imitating the job of Santer & al. who dropped all ENSO and volcano signals off RSS3.3 TLT, and obtained for 1979-2013 0.09 °C / decade instead of 0.12 °C for the original record at that time.

      • You have not taken the 1998 El Nino out.

        You still use the El Nino step up in your trend.. because its the only way you can get a trend.

        You are only FOOLING yourself.

      • I’m with AndyG55, you should throw out any data that you don’t like. When in doubt, throw it out.

      • AndyG55 on May 5, 2017 at 7:31 pm

        You have not taken the 1998 El Nino out.

        DWR54 on May 5, 2017 at 1:06 am

        Just to be clear, I started the series at April 1987 (30 years exactly before March 2017, the latest HadCRUT4 monthly temperature update) then discounted the monthly values between April 1997 and June 1998… (the respective start and end months of the centred 3-month average El Niño periods according to NOAA).

        *
        Bindidon on May 5, 2017 at 10:20 am

        But I’m not sure that the method is 100 % correct; one should eliminate out of the UAH records not those anomalies within the ENSO periods, but rather those with a 4 month lag.

        Typical AndyG55 message… the first I was teached before wrting was… to read.

        We are talking about El Niño here, AndyG55, and not about UAH as such. But I understand your point, and thus modified the Excel table such that really all of what I call the ‘UAH Niño’ now is dropped off, even till 2017:

        That results in a huge modification: the OLS estimate for the SuperNiñoless UAH6.0 series crashes down from 0.101 down to 0.095 °C / decade, an incredible difference of 0.006 °C (excusez-moi, Mr Courtney).

        Oh my.

      • enargpia, I know that arguing honestly is not your forte, but AndyG55 gave a reason why the El Nino should be tossed out.
        If you can’t deal with the argument that was actually made, then you reveal yourself to be nothing more than a poorly educated troll.

  52. Dr. Whitehouse is very optimistic here. In fact this paper is all about trying to claim that the models were right all along. ie if you adjust obs upwards and models downwards they agree just fine.

    Just a sample of dishonesty from the papers intro..:
    “Even though the [climategate] scientists were exonerated for scientific wrongdoing by several independent inquiries,”
    ->In reality only one was nearly independent and all of them had their terms of references limited to exclude anything important (having been directed only to a selection of uncontroversial papers that were pre-selected by UEA) and excluded any prosecution witnesses. Plus it was about the ‘hockey-stick’ not the modern temperature record so had nothing whatsoever to do with the ‘pause’.

    “..groups with particular interests used the case to question the trust in both climate science and the use of climate models”
    ->The only ‘particular interest’ is the pursuance of honest science rather than anti-capitalist dogma! The reason skeptics are mainly outside the climate community is because there is obviously not enough honesty or skepticism inside it.

    “..When we take these into consideration, what we are left with from the apparent hiatus is not inconsistent with the understanding of human influence on global climate. In fact, it increases the confidence in the dominant role of humans in long-term warming.”
    ->Sure if you adjust obs upwards and models downwards you get agreement but that should not increase an honest persons confidence in the models: They remain inadequate for policy – especially when nobody is actually adjusting them downwards! The IPCC understanding on human influence is in fact merely a broken syllogism; ‘it’s warming, we presume it isn’t natural (based on sunspots), so it must be us’. This pathetically unscientific dogma ignores ample evidence that the climate can change massively all by itself for reasons we are also unsure of (most especially the cooling events). A weak ‘not inconsistent with’ is no basis for destroying our energy infrastructure.

    • JasG: “Sure if you adjust obs upwards and models downwards you get agreement”

      Reminds me of a project manager of my acquaintance who seriously screwed up the scheduling on an airport new terminal build. I was working for one of the contractors and responsible for scheduling our work into the overall plan. The b*stard project manager kept moving the window for our works back at short notice, giving a new start date (based on when he anticipated pre-requisite work to be completed), which was then not met and had to be postponed again. Every week or so this *sshole would issue a new schedule, each as much of a fiction as the last. Anyway, long story short, the terminal eventually opened 6 months late. The project manager sent out a thank you email congratulating everyone for their hard work and for bringing the project in on time. And of course it WAS pretty-much “on-time” – according to the very last iteration of his ever moving schedule. In industry, as elsewhere, a lot of people are heavily invested in any given project being a “success”. There is often a lot of revisionist history writing required to bring about this happy state, and it usually suits most people to go along with it.

  53. How much clearer this post would have been if Karl and others had not adjusted the recent T record.
    Time will show if he was correct or not. Until then, the left side of the brain will not know how the right side thinks about the pause. Logic versus art.
    Wake me when it is more clear who was correct.
    Geoff.

  54. I realize this is slightly off topic, and a confirming datum for “Godwin’s Law” I picked it up from Lubos Motl’s blog. Here’s ANOTHER opinion article from “NATURE”.

    http://www.astronauticsnow.com/history/appeasement/index.html

    “The Promotion of Peace

    Editorial, Nature, vol. 142, No. 3597, October 8, 1938.

    The agreement arrived at by the four-power conference, which met at Munich on September 30 to find a peaceful solution of the conflicting rights of Czechs and Germans to territory assigned to Czechoslovakia by peace treaties which followed the Great War, marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the world, and will be gratefully welcomed by scientific workers in natural and national fields as a significant stage in the progressive ethical evolution of the human race.

    The British people have expressed their enthusiastic admiration for the self-sacrifice and unceasing endeavour exercised by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister, to secure this end. Suggestions have been made that a national tribute fund should be opened, and Sir Charles Hyde has put, at the disposal of the University of Birmingham the sum of £10,000 to provide a Neville Chamberlain fund or scholarship. Appropriate recognition, independent of nationality, could be given by the Nobel peace prize, which is awarded “to the person who shall have most or best promoted the fraternity of nations and the abolition or dissemination of standing armies and increase of peace congresses”.

    The immediate object of the meeting between Mr. Chamberlain, M. Daladier, Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini, reinforced by letters from President Roosevelt, was to find a peaceable settlement of a bitter dispute between Czechs and Germans; and though the people of Czechoslovakia naturally regard the terms imposed upon them as harsh, they and other nations would suffer far more if active hostilities had eventually to determine them. Even more important than the agreement of the four great European powers as to new boundaries between Germany and Czechoslovakia was the declaration signed by Mr. Chamberlain and Herr Hitler as the result of a further talk.

    “We regard,” it says, “the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.”

    This is, indeed, a step forward in the promotion of peaceful methods of settling disputes between nations; and however much we may deplore the intolerance of intellectual freedom, and the persecution of a defenceless minority, by which Germany is suppressing the advancement of knowledge and the rights of man, the declaration of the new Anglo-German undertaking makes the outlook much brighter. Sixty years ago, another Prime Minister, Disraeli, avoided a war between Russia and Britain by the Treaty of Berlin, as the result of consultation with the councils of Europe, and secured his “peace with honour”. We hope and believe that the resolution now made between the German Fuhrer and Chancellor and the British Prime Minister will have more lasting influence than that reached by Disraeli, of whose treaty it was said soon afterwards:

    “Once ‘peace with honour’ home was brought;
       And there the glory ceases.
    For peace a dozen wars has fought,
       And honour’s all to pieces.”

  55. Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See my Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    “ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    The paper was published in E&E on line at DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488

    See Fig 4 in the blog version linked above

    “The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.”

    For overview and forecast to 2100 see Fig 12

    Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
    Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2004 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2004.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2004 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed.

    • May I ask why you chose to stop your ‘From 2003.6’ trend line at 2015.2, considering that the site you are using runs RSS data up to 2017.17? Why did you cut outthe last year’s data?

      Here are the same data you plotted only this time running the ‘from 2003.6’ trend line to the latest data point: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend

      It shows warming, not cooling and not a flat line. Why did you chose to obscure this?

      • DWR54 on May 5, 2017 at 2:54 pm
        Why did you chose to obscure this?
        I guess Mr PAGE simply did it to have the plot best fitting to his eternal narrative.

      • Because he is expecting a la nina cooling to follow the el nino warming event, as it always does. You either include both or neither if you are trying to be scientific.

      • Look at Fig 4 above . I say
        “The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.”
        Look e.g.at how the 1998 El Nino appears relative to the trend. The 2016 El Nino is just an ephemeral bump which is also happens to be very close in time to the top of the RSS millennial cycle at 2003.6

      • JasG Of course – that is how geology works. You use all the available proxy and instrumental data including the solar activity and cloud data to build an hypothesis which fits all the data and choose Figures which illustrate your working hypothesis. Read the entire Blogpost linked above.
        Richard Greene My claim is rather modest actually
        “Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts ”
        Also, climate forecasts can only be tested against future outcomes – so of course I’m willing to suggest tests of my working hypotheses. If they don’t turn out I will modify my proposals.
        There is nothing mysterious about the late 20th century warming. 2004 is by chance at the peak of both the millennial and 60 year cycles – see Fig 12

    • Mr. Page
      I like the fact that you are not chasing the CO2 boogeyman ,,, but I believe you come across as too sure of your own theories, which hurts your credibility.

      I believe you further hurt your credibility by making very specific climate predictions.

      I’ve been reading about climate change since 1997 mainly because the demonization of fossil fuels may have a huge negative effect on economic growth and prosperity — my main interest is economic and finance.

      I believe the three most important things I have learned about climate change are that no one knows exactly what causes climate change, predictions of the future climate are almost always wrong, and CO2 is not likely to be a major climate change variable.

      The two easiest ways to make oneself look foolish on the subject of climate change are to claim you know what causes climate change ,,, and then make specific predictions of the future climate that could be proven wrong while you are still alive!

      Are there climate cycles?

      Maybe.

      But the proxy temperature data are too rough and LOCAL — they are not accurate enough GLOBAL data to conclude there’s a specific cycle, such as 1,000 years.

      Could there be a 1,000 to 2,000 year solar cycle?

      There is some evidence of that in ice core data.

      But I don’t think some evidence of a long-term cycle from ice cores is going to explain the mystery of the sudden warming from the 1993 low to the 2003 high — a step up — followed by a flat trend to 2015.

  56. New Study Confirms:
    “Between about 1998 and 2012, a time that coincided with political negotiations for preventing climate change, the surface of Earth seemed hardly to warm. This phenomenon, often termed the ‘global warming hiatus’, caused doubt in the public mind about how well anthropogenic climate change and natural variability are understood. Here we show that apparently contradictory conclusions stem from different definitions of ‘hiatus’ and from different datasets. A combination of changes in forcing, uptake of heat by the oceans, natural variability and incomplete observational coverage reconciles models and data. Combined with stronger recent warming trends in newer datasets, we are now more confident than ever that human influence is dominant in long-term warming.”

    Is that what the GWPF meant to say?

    • You mean conclude that climate science is all about post-facto adjustments to explain why everything they ever predict turns out to be wrong? Btw the hiatus in the stratosphere has existed since 1995; ie the main fingerprint of man-made warming – stratospheric cooling – has been missing for 22 years. Care to speculate on how and when the charlatans will adjust that inconvenient data to show cooling again?

      • JasG said:
        “the hiatus in the stratosphere has existed since 1995; ie the main fingerprint of man-made warming – stratospheric cooling – has been missing for 22 years.”

        The stratospheric cooling has been found — it is at the bottom of the oceans where all other missing fingerprints of man made warming are eventually located.

        My source: The internet

        The “science” behind the climate change cult is so bad that it should not be called “science” at all — just another phony environmental boogeyman used to gain attention, money and power … supported by meaningless wild guess computer games — the only connection to science is many of the climate con men happen to have science degrees.

      • Richard,

        I’m pretty sure that Trenberth could talk US taxpayers into funding his expedition to the deep sea to find the missing tropical tropospheric hot spot there, too.

        If it would get the rent-seeker permanently out of the US and back to his native NZ, I’d pony up my share gladly.

  57. Perhaps this is naive, but…

    I am most impressed by Anthony’s ability to keep his temper.

  58. I feel bad for people under 30. You guys are going to have to hear about this man made catastrophic global warming fake science for the rest of your lives. If the media hasn’t given up on this in the real face of facts yet, they never will. I mean come on, they report with straight faces that supposed global warming and plant food cause cold weather. Morons like that will never go away…

Comments are closed.