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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
394 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
brians356
May 4, 2017 9:31 am

Is Dr David related to Sheldon Whitehouse, the Grand Inquisitor of the Senate?

Reply to  brians356
May 4, 2017 9:58 am

No

AndyE
May 4, 2017 9:34 am

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  AndyE
May 4, 2017 9:58 am

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

brians356
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 4, 2017 10:12 am

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
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 4, 2017 11:15 am

“model response error” I love it.

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 4, 2017 11:35 am

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]

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 4, 2017 4:39 pm

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

Sun Spot
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 4, 2017 4:58 pm

Where’s Mosher with some meaningless drive by quip?

Bob boder
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 5, 2017 6:09 am

Richard
Great story

MarkW
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 5, 2017 7:20 am

Sun Spot, he’s waiting for someone to give him the quip.

Resourceguy
May 4, 2017 9:40 am

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.

Reply to  Resourceguy
May 4, 2017 10:00 am

Someone buy this man a beer!
+1
Andrew

Reply to  Bad Andrew
May 4, 2017 11:02 am

Is it warm enough for beer….?

MarkW
Reply to  Bad Andrew
May 4, 2017 12:44 pm

It’s always warm enough somewhere for beer.

HotScot
Reply to  Bad Andrew
May 4, 2017 4:29 pm

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

Reply to  Bad Andrew
May 4, 2017 8:23 pm

Oh noes. Bier has to be very cold and the weather must be warm. Luckily it is mostly warm here….

ATheoK
Reply to  Bad Andrew
May 4, 2017 9:33 pm

“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?

Chimp
Reply to  Bad Andrew
May 4, 2017 9:37 pm

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

Reply to  Bad Andrew
May 5, 2017 12:05 am

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…

Reply to  Resourceguy
May 4, 2017 10:12 am

Can we short the climate?
Now might be a good time.

brians356
Reply to  ptolemy2
May 4, 2017 10:23 am

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.

Reply to  ptolemy2
May 4, 2017 1:43 pm

Climate shorts?
Sounds like a product opportunity.

Chimp
Reply to  ptolemy2
May 4, 2017 1:46 pm

Definitely. A runup like 2015-16 would be an obvious shorting opportunity in any market.
Still probably not too late.

RoHa
Reply to  ptolemy2
May 4, 2017 9:26 pm

“Climate shorts?
Sounds like a product opportunity.”
If the climate warms up as much as the alarmists predict, we’ll all be wearing shorts.

MarkW
Reply to  ptolemy2
May 9, 2017 8:18 am

If not, then we are going to take it in the shorts.

Reply to  Resourceguy
May 4, 2017 10:26 am

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.”)

Resourceguy
Reply to  Don132
May 4, 2017 10:46 am

Okay, but it assumes nothing fundamental happens—ever.

DBH
Reply to  Don132
May 4, 2017 1:46 pm

Yep, double thumbs up to your comment Don
D B H

Javert Chip
Reply to  Don132
May 4, 2017 5:47 pm

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.

RWturner
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 4, 2017 10:50 am

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.

Duster
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 4, 2017 11:30 am

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.

commieBob
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 4, 2017 12:13 pm

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.

HotScot
Reply to  commieBob
May 4, 2017 4:43 pm

@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”

Chimp
Reply to  commieBob
May 4, 2017 4:46 pm

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!

Chimp
Reply to  commieBob
May 4, 2017 4:46 pm

And even though it’s much worse than we thought, we predicted that.

Chimp
Reply to  commieBob
May 4, 2017 4:50 pm

There was a monkey of ape, don’t recall which, in Chicago which had a better record than fund managers over a number of years. Maybe about a decade ago now.
Simian simulations find the same result:
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/04/05/Study-Monkeys-pick-stocks-better-than-fund-managers/8071365165061/

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 4, 2017 1:31 pm

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).

Chimp
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 4, 2017 1:34 pm

Fundamental analysis suggests what to buy. Technical analysis suggests when to buy.
It has worked for me.

Chimp
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 4, 2017 1:37 pm

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.

DBH
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 4, 2017 1:54 pm

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

Editor
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 4, 2017 2:28 pm

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 [..].”.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 4, 2017 3:17 pm
Writing Observer
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 4, 2017 3:46 pm

@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.”

Chimp
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 4, 2017 4:01 pm

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.”

angech
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 4, 2017 7:44 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 4, 2017 7:50 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 5, 2017 7:24 am

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

DBH
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 4, 2017 1:43 pm

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

DBH
Reply to  DBH
May 4, 2017 1:44 pm

Ooops…to be clear.
this was in response to a comment from Resourceguy

angech
Reply to  DBH
May 5, 2017 12:44 am

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

Solomon Green
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 6, 2017 5:56 am

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.

BallBounces
May 4, 2017 9:42 am

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

May 4, 2017 9:44 am

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.

May 4, 2017 9:46 am

Why the ALLCAPS?

brians356
Reply to  Hans Erren
May 4, 2017 10:24 am

WHERE?

Hugs
Reply to  brians356
May 4, 2017 10:32 am

IN TITLE!

J Mac
May 4, 2017 9:50 am

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…..

May 4, 2017 9:51 am

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.

May 4, 2017 9:58 am

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).

Richard M
Reply to  Michael darby
May 4, 2017 4:49 pm

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.

Reply to  Michael darby
May 5, 2017 12:53 pm

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.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Michael darby
May 6, 2017 6:05 am

THAT’S not cherry-picking. THIS is cherry-picking! (1998 to 2015)

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Michael darby
May 6, 2017 6:06 am
MarkW
Reply to  Michael darby
May 9, 2017 8:22 am

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.

ReallySkeptical
Reply to  ristvan
May 4, 2017 10:08 am

except that all the surface sets have 2017 on track over 2014 and 2015…

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 10:31 am

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.

PiperPaul
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 10:48 am

ReallySkeptical isn’t.

brians356
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 10:54 am

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.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 11:49 am

Michael darby May 4, 2017 at 10:07 am
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/trend

Rud posted:

Except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino blip, no warming this century…

The big spike towards the right-hand side of the graph is the 2015-16 El Niño.

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 11:59 am

Dave, does the word “except” mean the cherry you are picking from the tree is ripe, or rotting? You see Mr. Middleton, if you pick the right time interval, you can easily see we’re heading for a new glaciation: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2016/plot/rss/from:2016/trend

richardscourtney
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 12:17 pm

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
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 12:28 pm

Mr. Courtney, I’ve made no mention of climate models.

richardscourtney
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 12:36 pm

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

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 12:44 pm

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.”

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 12:47 pm

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?

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 12:48 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 12:50 pm

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?

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 12:56 pm

MarkW, excluding any data will get you into trouble.

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 1:09 pm

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 darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 1:35 pm

MarkW, ENSO is not an anomaly.

Chimp
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 1:57 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 1:58 pm

In terms of temperature trends, it is most definitely an anomaly.

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:12 pm

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.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:13 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:20 pm

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.

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:20 pm

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?

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:25 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:32 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:33 pm

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.

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:37 pm

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

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:41 pm

Chimp: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anomaly “Something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected”
.
.
Since we “expect” ENSO events to happen, they are not an “anomaly”

Chimp
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:41 pm

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?

Chimp
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:44 pm

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?

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:44 pm

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

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:47 pm

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

Gabro
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 2:59 pm

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]

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 3:04 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 4:16 pm

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.
http://i.imgur.com/CcQ9icH.png
Asterisk is present position

Gabro
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 4:30 pm

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.

Gabro
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 4:34 pm

Javier,
Nice graphic. Must be smoothed, though. Some wiggles are missing between HCO and now.
Guess we should enjoy the interglacial while it lasts.

Richard M
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 4:54 pm

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.

Michael darby
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 5:02 pm

Please Richard M, please tell all of us what I’m trying to accomplish.

angech
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 7:50 pm

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.

Grey Lensman
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 9:50 pm

“Sceptical”

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 5, 2017 7:27 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 5, 2017 7:28 am

Michael, Richard already said what you are attempting to do.
Mislead.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 6, 2017 6:07 am

How does one get images to embed in the post?

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 9, 2017 8:24 am

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.

Reply to  ristvan
May 4, 2017 3:27 pm

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.

Javier
May 4, 2017 10:00 am

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.

Hugs
Reply to  Javier
May 4, 2017 10:33 am

+1. But of course, El Niños are part of the long term trend like any other years.

Duster
Reply to  Javier
May 4, 2017 11:39 am

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,

Butch
Reply to  Duster
May 4, 2017 11:59 am

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

Richard M
Reply to  Duster
May 4, 2017 5:03 pm

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.

Michael darby
Reply to  Duster
May 4, 2017 5:08 pm

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?”

MarkW
Reply to  Duster
May 5, 2017 7:32 am

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.

Chris
Reply to  Duster
May 5, 2017 11:14 am

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?

Richard M
Reply to  Duster
May 7, 2017 8:48 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Duster
May 9, 2017 8:26 am

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?

Reply to  Javier
May 4, 2017 12:27 pm

You are right. Before 2019-2020, we do not know what is going on.

Reply to  Javier
May 4, 2017 3:33 pm

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.

bit chilly
Reply to  Javier
May 4, 2017 3:42 pm

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.

Richard M
Reply to  Javier
May 4, 2017 5:15 pm

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.

Bob boder
Reply to  Richard M
May 5, 2017 11:38 am

RM
“This summer should give us some solid hints”
Nuff said about paying any attention to you!

Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
May 7, 2017 8:47 am

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?

Chimp
Reply to  Javier
May 4, 2017 5:21 pm

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

Dodgy Geezer
May 4, 2017 10:03 am

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…

gnomish
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 4, 2017 1:26 pm

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. 😀

bitchilly
Reply to  gnomish
May 4, 2017 3:42 pm

+1

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 4, 2017 4:25 pm

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!

Reply to  teapartygeezer
May 7, 2017 8:25 am

TeaPartyGeezer, You forgot “Climate Disruption” just before “Climate Stagnation”.

ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 10:05 am

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 10:08 am

ReallySkeptical:
Yes, nobody expected you to think otherwise.
Richard

ReallySkeptical
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 4, 2017 12:36 pm

You mean, nobody _here_

hunter
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 5, 2017 4:23 am

Richard, no one expects “really sceptical” to be real, sceptical, or thinking much at all.

MarkW
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 10:32 am

Since 2016 is still an El Nino year, why should they have included it?

ReallySkeptical
Reply to  MarkW
May 4, 2017 12:37 pm

Then why did they include 2015 and 1997/1998?

Richard M
Reply to  MarkW
May 4, 2017 5:29 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 7:34 am

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.

brians356
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 10:32 am

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 12:41 pm

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

ReallySkeptical
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 4, 2017 3:26 pm

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 4, 2017 10:36 pm

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

hunter
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 5, 2017 4:29 am

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

Bob boder
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 5, 2017 5:58 am

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.

Reply to  Bob boder
May 5, 2017 6:21 am

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.

Bob boder
Reply to  richardscourtney
May 5, 2017 7:52 am

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.

Editor
Reply to  Bob boder
May 5, 2017 8:46 am

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.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
May 4, 2017 1:52 pm

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.

Patrick B
May 4, 2017 10:07 am

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.

May 4, 2017 10:08 am

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.

JCH
May 4, 2017 10:14 am

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.

Reply to  JCH
May 4, 2017 10:46 am

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

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
May 4, 2017 1:22 pm

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

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
May 4, 2017 2:31 pm

1974 is 43 years ago, not 53.

bitchilly
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
May 4, 2017 3:48 pm

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.

Javier
Reply to  JCH
May 4, 2017 11:40 am

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.

JCH
Reply to  Javier
May 5, 2017 7:03 am

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

Javier
Reply to  Javier
May 5, 2017 7:09 am

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.

Chimp
Reply to  JCH
May 4, 2017 12:37 pm

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

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 12:38 pm

First column after the month number is the global mean.

MarkW
Reply to  JCH
May 4, 2017 12:53 pm

JCH, the spike has already leveled off. The question now is how much lower it will go.

Chimp
Reply to  MarkW
May 4, 2017 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
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.”

James Schrumpf
Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2017 7:12 am

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.

Richard M
Reply to  JCH
May 4, 2017 5:51 pm

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.

Editor
May 4, 2017 10:22 am

Request the author post a link to the GWPF offices or web pages when convenient.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
May 4, 2017 10:29 am

Thegwpf.com.

ShrNfr
May 4, 2017 10:26 am

The AMO is a sine of our times.
[Let us not get distracted with obscurve tangents. .mod]

Resourceguy
Reply to  ShrNfr
May 4, 2017 10:35 am

+2

Walt D.
Reply to  ShrNfr
May 4, 2017 2:19 pm

lol

Reply to  ShrNfr
May 4, 2017 3:50 pm

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.

MarkW
May 4, 2017 10:27 am

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.

Hugs
Reply to  MarkW
May 4, 2017 10:38 am

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

Reply to  Hugs
May 4, 2017 3:52 pm

Hugs: I have a whole room full of snow I will sell when there’s no more snow.
You can pre-order now with a $20 deposit

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  MarkW
May 4, 2017 1:22 pm

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?

TA
Reply to  MarkW
May 4, 2017 8:57 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 5, 2017 7:38 am

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.

Griff
May 4, 2017 10:28 am

Hmm….
this article says ‘New study finds there never was an unexpected lull in climate change …’
Referring to same study, it seems
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/may/04/global-warming-scientists-learn-lessons-from-the-pause-that-never-was

John M
Reply to  Griff
May 4, 2017 11:27 am

Key word: unexpected
Seems they fully expected the pause…after it happened.

Reply to  John M
May 4, 2017 2:07 pm

“This I have also foreseen!”
The soothsayer, in Asterix and the Soothsayer.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Griff
May 4, 2017 11:29 am

the guardian?
ROFLMAO!!!

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 4, 2017 12:55 pm

If I bothered to read, no doubt it wouldn’t say what Griff says it says.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 4, 2017 2:27 pm

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.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 5, 2017 12:14 am

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.

Mickey Reno
May 4, 2017 10:30 am

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.

May 4, 2017 10:30 am

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.

Macha
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
May 5, 2017 4:38 pm

SWilde, why don,t you post regularly, or accept blogs on your own Site?

Rob Dawg
May 4, 2017 10:40 am

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.

Tom
May 4, 2017 10:46 am

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?

pdtillman
May 4, 2017 11:01 am

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

Chimp
May 4, 2017 11:24 am

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”.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 11:26 am

“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).”

MarkW
Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 12:57 pm

I for one have never been a pause supporter. I’ve just noted that it exists.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 1:29 pm
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 1:24 pm

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

Chimp
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2017 1:40 pm

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.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2017 2:49 pm

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:
comment image
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.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png
That will change the weather.

Chimp
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2017 3:03 pm

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2017 3:05 pm

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

Chimp
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2017 3:11 pm

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.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2017 3:40 pm

“It shows why the Arctic is likely to be a seasonal ocean very soon …”.
==============================================
Circum-Arctic ocean temperatures at selected depths:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/ArgoCircumArcticSince200401%2055N-65N.gif

tony mcleod
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2017 4:18 pm

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

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2017 6:32 pm

“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
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 5, 2017 1:07 am

It shows delta J.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 5, 2017 7:41 am

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

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 6, 2017 7:16 am

The oceans had negative heat before 1980?

venuscold
May 4, 2017 11:31 am

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

Butch
Reply to  venuscold
May 4, 2017 12:08 pm

..I’m pretty sure that Griffy is available for hire !

MarkW
Reply to  Butch
May 4, 2017 12:57 pm

If Griff were to pound his head in a forest, would he notice?

Javert Chip
Reply to  Butch
May 4, 2017 6:19 pm

He’d make those trees ring (sorry, couldn’t resist)

MarkW
Reply to  Butch
May 5, 2017 7:42 am

+97

Bob boder
Reply to  venuscold
May 5, 2017 9:19 am

MarkW
“If Griff were to pound his head in a forest, would he notice?”
Not a chance in hell.

Chimp
May 4, 2017 11:34 am

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 1:44 pm

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.

Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 2:12 pm

O that’s my kind of mother!

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 2:14 pm

Spare the rod and spoil the scientist.

May 4, 2017 11:38 am

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
May 4, 2017 11:46 am

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?

Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 5:31 pm

The only down side of increased WV that I see is increased risk of flooding and cost of snow removal.
“We can ignore reality but we can not ignore the consequences of ignoring reality” Ayn Rand

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 5:34 pm

Balanced out by profits for the ski industry!

Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 6:55 pm

Drug tunnels are easy to eliminate.
End Prohibition.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 6:58 pm

M,
Not so sure. Depends upon price differential, among other factors.
Besides, if drugs were no longer profitable, then arms and humans would still be trafficked through them, as now.

Reply to  Chimp
May 5, 2017 1:28 pm

Chi – I doubt that flood victims would perceive it as ‘balanced out’.

M Courtney
May 4, 2017 11:44 am

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.

Chimp
Reply to  M Courtney
May 4, 2017 11:49 am

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.

AndyG55
Reply to  M Courtney
May 4, 2017 3:07 pm

“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.

Lance Wallace
May 4, 2017 11:54 am

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.

TA
Reply to  Lance Wallace
May 4, 2017 9:19 pm

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.

Don B
May 4, 2017 11:56 am

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

talldave2
Reply to  Don B
May 4, 2017 1:48 pm

China has a solution.

Phil R
May 4, 2017 11:59 am

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?

Butch
Reply to  Phil R
May 4, 2017 12:14 pm

Install AdBlock Plus from Cnet for free(use the correct version for your browser)…You can turn it on or off when Nasty ads Take a web page hostage !!!

Butch
Reply to  Butch
May 4, 2017 12:16 pm

click “visit site” (safer this way)

Phil R
Reply to  Butch
May 4, 2017 12:27 pm

Butch,
Thanks for the reply and info. I’ll give it a try.

Butch
Reply to  Butch
May 4, 2017 12:30 pm

Please remember to turn it off when Anthony’s pages don’t have this problem…

Brett Keane
Reply to  Butch
May 4, 2017 4:50 pm

“Private Browsing” works too, from the browser opening pop-up. If all else fails.

TA
Reply to  Phil R
May 4, 2017 9:23 pm

NoScript, Phil R. It works like a charm for me. It’s a Firefox add-on and it’s free.

Resourceguy
May 4, 2017 12:25 pm

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.

May 4, 2017 12:50 pm

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?comment image?ssl=1&w=450
It’s 4 times better right?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  micro6500
May 4, 2017 2:36 pm

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?

May 4, 2017 12:57 pm

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)?

Chimp
Reply to  fhhaynie
May 4, 2017 1:31 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 2:05 pm

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

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 4, 2017 2:07 pm

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.

talldave2
May 4, 2017 1:47 pm

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.

Tenn
May 4, 2017 1:47 pm

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.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Tenn
May 4, 2017 2:57 pm

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.

TA
Reply to  Tenn
May 4, 2017 9:26 pm

Good post, Tenn.

1sky1
May 4, 2017 1:57 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  1sky1
May 4, 2017 2:05 pm

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.

talldave2
Reply to  Chimp
May 5, 2017 10:14 am

FWIW Santer said the model would have failed if we got to 17 years with no warming. SPOILER: We did. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/04/rss-reaches-santers-17-years/

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 6, 2017 1:50 pm

In the CACA religion, all prior statements are subject to adjustment. Santer may prefer to recant his previous statement rather than be cast into outer darkness for his most grievous heresy.

Reply to  1sky1
May 4, 2017 2:53 pm

“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.

AndyG55
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 4, 2017 3:04 pm

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.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 4, 2017 3:04 pm

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

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 4, 2017 9:43 pm

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”.

1sky1
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 5, 2017 2:51 pm

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.”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 5, 2017 5:05 pm

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

1sky1
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 6, 2017 1:40 pm

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.

Reply to  1sky1
May 4, 2017 4:11 pm

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.

May 4, 2017 2:20 pm

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.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 4, 2017 3:00 pm

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.

Walter Williams
May 4, 2017 2:39 pm

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?

May 4, 2017 2:41 pm

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

AndyG55
May 4, 2017 3:02 pm

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.comment imagecomment image

nankerphelge
May 4, 2017 3:11 pm

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.

May 4, 2017 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
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.

Chimp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 4, 2017 4:02 pm

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.

Simon
Reply to  Chimp
May 5, 2017 12:42 pm

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.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 4, 2017 4:14 pm

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  Richard Greene
May 4, 2017 4:36 pm

“Three decimal places for average temperature data?”
It isn’t average temperature data. It is trend, in °C/Century.

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 5, 2017 2:12 am

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,

Butch
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 4, 2017 4:37 pm

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

Reply to  Butch
May 4, 2017 7:23 pm

“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.

seaice1
Reply to  Butch
May 5, 2017 5:15 am

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

Bindidon
Reply to  Butch
May 5, 2017 12:14 pm

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!
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170505/gi6thaz9.png
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.

Richard M
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 4, 2017 7:26 pm

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.

Bindidon
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 5, 2017 4:17 pm

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/

Bindidon
Reply to  Bindidon
May 6, 2017 1:43 am

Oooh my bad, text mode! No one sees my so pretty beautiful pics! Je suis inconsolable 🙂

Richard M
Reply to  Bindidon
May 6, 2017 8:11 am

I thought you could check it out for yourself. Of course, when you don’t want to understand …..comment image?itok=1Kdwhlgn