Tamper, tamper! How They failed to hide the gulf between predicted and observed warming

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The indefatigable Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville is the first to declare the global temperature anomaly for December 2017. As Fig. 1 shows, in the 39 years 1 month from December 1978 to December 2017, the planet has warmed by half a Celsius degree. But that is equivalent to 1.28 C°/century, or little more than one-third of the 3.3 C°/century predicted with “substantial confidence” by IPCC in 1990 and also by the fifth-generation general-circulation models of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project in 2013.

clip_image002

Fig. 1 The least-squares linear-regression trend on the entire UAH satellite shows monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows warming at a rate equivalent to just 1.28 C°/century from December 1978 to December 2017.

Is the rate of global warming rising inexorably? The answer is No, as Fig. 2 shows:

clip_image004

Fig. 2 The least-squares trend on the UAH dataset shows warming at a rate equivalent to 0.85 C°/century from February 1997 to December 2017.

The warming rate in the 251 months of data that account for just over half the entire UAH dataset is not higher than the rate for the entire 469-month record. It is down by a third, from 1.28 0.85 C°/century. I chose the start date for Fig. 2 because it was also the start date for the longest period of the Great Pause, which – in the RSS satellite dataset – ran for a spectacular 18 years 9 months from February 1997 to October 2015, as Fig. 3 shows:

clip_image006

Fig. 3 The least-squares trend on the RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 9 months February 1997 to October 2015, the longest period of the Pause, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings occurred during that period.

A little history. In preparation for a debate in the Senate at the end of 2015, Senator Ted Cruz approached the Heartland Institute to request its advice on the single graph that would most clearly encapsulate the climate-skeptical case. Fig. 3 was chosen, and Senator Cruz displayed it on the floor of the Senate, to the visible discomfiture of the Democrats. The late Bob Carter, shortly before his untimely death, wrote to me to say how pleased he was that we had added the line pointing out that one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since 1750 had arisen during the Pause, but without causing any global warming at all.

In my report of the Pause in November 2017 at WattsUpWithThat, I predicted that the RSS dataset would swiftly be tampered with to try to eradicate the Pause. Just weeks later, Dr Carl Mears, the keeper of that dataset, who is prone to describe skeptics as “deniers”, announced that there would indeed be a revision, which, when it arrived, airbrushed the Pause away.

What is interesting is that the airbrushing – i.e., the alteration of data ex post facto to suit the Party Line – has continued. The dataset as it stood a few months back swept away the embarrassing zero trend over the 18 years 9 months of the Pause and replaced it with a trend equivalent to 0.77 C°/century (Fig. 4).

However, that tamperature change was not enough. The RSS dataset as it stands today shows a warming rate equivalent to 0.83 C°/century over exactly the same period (Fig. 5).

clip_image008

Fig. 4 The least-squares trend on the RSS dataset for the 18 years 9 months of the Pause, based on the data as they stood in mid-2017.

clip_image010

Fig. 5 The least-squares trend on the RSS dataset for the 18 years 9 months of the Pause, this time using the data as they stand today.

Contrast Figs. 4-5 with Fig. 6, the current UAH data for the 18 years 9 months of the Pause, which show the world warming at a statistically-insignificant 0.05 C°/century equivalent over the period of the Pause.

At the time of the Pause, the UAH data showed a higher rate of warming than RSS. Since then, the UAH data have been revised with the effect of reducing the formerly-evident small warming rate over the period of the Pause, while RSS has been – and continues to be – revised so as to increase the apparent warming rate over the same period.

On all of these data, it is evident that the rate of global warming is very considerably below what had originally been predicted. In a future article, I shall show just how large is the discrepancy between excitable prediction and unexciting observation, and just how false were the various artful claims in certain reviewed papers that IPCC’s original predictions were about right, and just how wrong those predictions – properly understood – truly were.

Finally, in due course I shall show exactly what error in the models has led to the extravagant over-predictions, and just how small the properly-predicted warming rate will be once that fatal error is corrected.

clip_image012

Fig. 6 The least-squares trend on the current UAH dataset agrees with the original RSS dataset in showing global warming at a rate statistically indistinguishable from zero in the 18 years 9 months February 1997 to October 2015.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
378 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AndyG55
January 3, 2018 3:08 am

As I have said once or twice.

The ONLY warming has come from the main El Nino events.

From 1980-1997… NO WARMING
comment image

From 2001-2015… NO WARMING
comment image

El Nino events have no CO2 or human forcing, they are PURELY NATURAL.

That means there is NO CO2 or human forcing in the whole of the satellite temperature data.

rh
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 3:54 am

After the 97/98 super El Nino, we went right into a positive AMO. That could account for the apparent step caused by the El Nino.comment image

Doug
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 3:59 am

What happened to 1998 – 2000?

Why are they not represented?

Thanks

billw1984
Reply to  Doug
January 3, 2018 4:36 am

Those are above in the original article. Everyone knows what the major El ninos look like. They cause large excursions of increased temps for several years and often a step change in temperature. Andy is illustrating his statement that the increases in the satellite record over time are largely due to the major El nino events as step changes.

AndyG55
Reply to  Doug
January 3, 2018 6:14 am

If you want a “human” or CO2 signature, you have to take the totally natural El Ninos out of the picture.

When you do that… no warming !!

billw1984
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 4:31 am

Not saying this is the case, but if El nino events became more frequent or stronger or just the major El nine’s did, this could be due to human influence. IF the oceans warmed over time due to the atmosphere and surface warming under the influence of higher CO2. Just because it is El nino does not mean it is all natural. One might expect the warming due to GHGs increasing to come about via increased El nino events in some form.

Ian W
Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 4:46 am

IF the oceans warmed over time due to the atmosphere and surface warming under the influence of higher CO2

There is no mechanism for atmospheric CO2 to warm the oceans to the level required for an El Nino. ‘Downwelling’ infrared cannot heat water and in any case does not supply sufficient energy for the observed ocean temperature rise, only the shortwave radiation from the Sun can warm the Pacific to the level required.

Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 5:52 am

Ian, no matter how often this thermodynamics 101 misconception about carbon dioxide heating the oceans is corrected the lesson will never be learned. It is what is generally known as a zombie fact. No matter how many times you lop its head off with a spade it just keeps on getting up and lurching towards you. Perhaps the cryogenic temperatures possibly heading this way might manage to freeze it into inactivity for a while at least …

MarkW
Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 6:22 am

Downwelling radiation doesn’t warm the ocean. It warms the air, which in turn prevents the heat created by shortwave radiation from escaping the ocean.

Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 7:17 am

Try to heat water with a hair dryer …

Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 7:34 am

MarkW January 3, 2018 at 6:22 am
Downwelling radiation doesn’t warm the ocean. It warms the air, which in turn prevents the heat created by shortwave radiation from escaping the ocean.

No, it increases the rate of evaporation which cools the ocean faster Mark. The ocean cools almost exclusively by evaporation not radiation. A warmer atmosphere increases the rate of evaporation.

dh-mtl
Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 8:03 am

There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that El Nino events are becoming more frequent, or stronger, There are however periods when they become predominantly biased to one side or the other, i.e. towards El Nino, as in the 1990s, or La Nina, as in the 1970s. These biases in ENSO are reflected in the global temperatures for several years afterwards.

I think that the most likely cause of these biases (warmer or colder ENSO) is the variation in solar activity, through the solar cycles, when more or less solar radiation penetrates deep into the ocean. The lag, between the variation in intensity of solar cycles and the bias in the El Nino events, appears to be of the order of decades (roughly 30 rears or so).

michael hart
Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 8:08 am

I think MarkW’s main point is that it must heat the atmosphere first before it can have any secondary effects on the surface temperature of the ocean whatever they may be. Therefore the (IR-caused) heating should be detected in the atmosphere, it cannot skip the atmosphere to get to the ocean and then come out of the ocean to warm the atmosphere.

MarkW
Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 8:11 am

Sasjal, invalid analogy. Heat the water with a short wave source, no change in air temperature, see how much the water warms.
Keep the short wave source the same, now also heat the air with a short wave source, and see what happens to the temperature of the water.
It will warm.

Reply to  MarkW
January 3, 2018 10:35 am

MarkW,

Just refering to a simple experiment made in science class back in the 1970’s, before politics corrupted it later on.

Point is: Warm air do not heat water much.

MarkW
Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 8:12 am

jinghis, only true until the air above the water reaches equilibrium with the water.

michael hart
Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 8:13 am

Of course they might argue that if the CO2 caused reduced cloudiness then that would allow more short-wave sunlight into the oceans and increase temperature that way, but I’m not sure if the global warmers try to make that case or if the data is good enough to settle the question either way.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 11:32 am

SasjaL
A better test would be to try to heat water with an IR heat lamp. Air moving over the surface of water will remove the boundary layer of saturated air and allow more evaporation. The moving air doesn’t even have to be hot.

Duster
Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 6:32 pm

MarkW January 3, 2018 at 8:12 am
jinghis, only true until the air above the water reaches equilibrium with the water.

That however will not happen, or at most will last for a very short time. Warm wet air masses are ineherently unstable near the surface. As Willis has repeatedly pointed out, the warmest, wettest air on the planet is parent to the most and biggest thunderstorms (along the equator). Those storms cool the area beneath them carrying water vapour aloft where cloud formation releases the heat of evaporation. The majority of which will then depart the planet, regardless of CO2.

Little polyp
Reply to  billw1984
January 3, 2018 10:29 pm

Yes maybe

However the El Niño phenomenon has existed for aeons and long before any human related CO2 emissions which suggests that it is a natural event and therefore any warming is a consequence of natural variability

commieBob
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 5:43 am

El Nino events have no CO2 or human forcing, they are PURELY NATURAL.

The central problem of global warming is to separate any human caused warming from natural processes. The world has been warming since we began to emerge from the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800s. As Judith Curry points out, the (natural) warming in the early 1900s is hard to distinguish from the warming at the end of the 1900s. The obvious question is, how can we say the recent warming is not entirely natural.

By the same token, we can’t insist, without proof, that El Ninos are completely uninfluenced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Reply to  commieBob
January 3, 2018 7:47 am

Looking at the HadSST3 data, there was only one real ocean warming period. It happened in the mid to late 1877 period, which makes sense. The Great Chinese Famine of 1877-79 is proof of a huge ocean warming period that had absolutely nothing to do with CO2 levels. HadSST3 monthly data set here : https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt

AGW is not Science
Reply to  commieBob
January 3, 2018 9:47 am

Why not? The Null Hypothesis is that ALL climate changes are natural. It’s the Eco-Fascists that need to PROVE there is ANY “anthropogenic” influence on ANY of it – AND prove any such influence is detrimental, as opposed to neutral or beneficial (the last being the most likely if there is any measurable effect at all, which in turn is highly doubtful). AGW has no empirical evidence to back it up; it’s nothing more than a house of cards built on unproven hypotheses, and assumptions and extrapolations all of which assume the unproven hypotheses as fact. IOW, it has yet to emerge from the realm of “hypothetical bullshit.”

DWR54
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 5:53 am

While we’re at it why not also remove the cooling influences of the La Nina periods in between? If you remove the warm natural variations but retain the cool natural variations then don’t be surprised if you reduce the warming trend!

MarkW
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 6:22 am

Already done.

DWR54
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 11:52 am

Where? There’s no removal of La Nina influence from the above charts. In the data series where ENSO influences are removed in total, warming continues.

Matt G
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 3:14 pm

There is no warming trend when the AMO is removed from global temperatures.

MarkW
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 4:31 pm

El Nino/La Nina pairs were removed.

Hugs
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 7:36 am

What makes you think the step signal you separated is the signal and nothing but the signal? There is some warming at long term. You don’t know what is the GHG component, and what happens to be something else. Instead, you assert the GHG part is zero (a rather stubborn attitude) and then ‘explain’ the rise as El Niño related. You need a theory to explain why successive El Niños may change temperature and when and why it is gonna change.

I think the 0.2C increase per decade is not so far fetched you couldn’t admit it is mostly due to increasing CO2. What I’m interested is the time lag, how much the trend is going to continue given we have say, 550ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.

Just remember the 2C limit is coming out of thin air. It is just bollocks and gonna stretch up or down should it be convenient for activists.

MarkW
Reply to  Hugs
January 3, 2018 8:14 am

It could only be “mostly CO2” if the natural cycles are small and weak.
There is substantial evidence that they are not.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Hugs
January 3, 2018 10:06 am

All you need do to assess the CO2 component is to look at the Earth’s climate history, where you’ll find:

1. No correlation whatsoever between CO2 and temperature on geologic time scales that remotely suggests that CO2 “drives” the Earth’s temperature.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=Z9jvy3Ep&id=810CD60B723E937821A8484CBB85FBEA8ADDB667&thid=OIP.Z9jvy3Ep7BtlurP7iR-y8gHaEs&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fskepticalscience.com%2fpics%2fnova_past_climate3.gif&exph=285&expw=450&q=geocarb+graph&simid=608004999894402164&selectedIndex=10&adlt=strict&ajaxhist=0

2. On shorter time scales where there IS a correlation, the correlation is the exact REVERSE, suggesting a relationship “temperature drives CO2 level” which is in line with the easily testable solubility of CO2 in water, which varies in inverse fashion to temperature.

3. On the same shorter time scales where CO2 level is shown to FOLLOW temperature, up AND down, temperature always starts FALLING when CO2 levels are at their HIGHEST level, underscoring the notion that CO2 level has NO effect on temperature.

So the honest scientific assessment is CO2 has no effect on temperature. The “effect” of increasing CO2 level on temperature is hypothetical BS. As always, in “assuming” the “possibility” that CO2 has an effect on temperature, you forget the REQUIRED caveat – “ALL OTHER THINGS HELD EQUAL,” without which you get the observed NON-effect.

Moa
Reply to  Hugs
January 3, 2018 10:26 am

The UN IPCC AGW Hypothesis makes the specific prediction that the lower troposphere will warm faster than the surface. Any time you see the surface warming faster than the lower troposphere you are not seeing AGW according to the IPCC.

The ENSO warms the ocean before the atmosphere. It is, but the IPCC’s own criterion, not AGW.

Anyone who talks about ENSO effects as a result of CO2 clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental claims of the IPCC.

The natural effect that could cause the energy build up for ENSO is changes in cloud cover, which may or may not be due to changes in solar magnetic activity (which we observe indirectly as sunspot frequency). I believe there is a correlation between the integrated number of sunspots and water temperature, but that is only a correlation not a causation.

We will know when the IPCC’s prediction comes true when the Lower Tropical Troposphere starts warming faster than the Earth’s surface/oceans. At the moment we not only don’t see this, we see the opposite happening. IPCC AGW fails its own litmus test for science (but is still succeeding well enough in its primary goals, which are political – transfer of economic sovereignty to the United Nations and make populations receptive to giving money to rich ‘Green’ investors).

Hey, did you know there are as many letters in ‘CAGW’ as there are in ‘SCAM’ ?

AndyG55
Reply to  Hugs
January 3, 2018 11:57 am

“you assert the GHG part is zero”

There is no GHG signal in the whole satellite data.

What else am I meant to do.

Make something up ???

MarkW
Reply to  Hugs
January 3, 2018 4:32 pm

You once again overstate the case.
Being unable to detect a CO2 signal in the noisy climate data is not the same thing as proof that there is no CO2 signal.

Reply to  MarkW
January 3, 2018 5:27 pm

If you can’t detect it, MarkW, is it accepted on faith?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Hugs
January 4, 2018 11:42 am

Dave,
No, it makes CO2 driven CAGW an unproven conjecture. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. But in these cases, there is no onus on anybody to take action one way or the other.

Joseph Murphy
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 10:29 am

Is El Niño a source of energy? What is the mechanism of El Niño adding energy to the system? Or is El Niño the observation of energy already added to the system?

Matt G
Reply to  Joseph Murphy
January 3, 2018 2:46 pm

An El Nino is a natural release of energy already in the system from the ocean to the atmosphere. It causes big increases in cloud albedo and helps cool the Tropics. This energy release is transferred to other areas of the world by ocean circulation and atmospheric convection.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  Joseph Murphy
January 4, 2018 2:34 am

El nino is a source of energy: however unlike all CO2 adepts believe, El nino has only one driver: the sun.

it’s the sun coupled with the trade winds that heat up the water, transporting it westwards to the Pacific warm pool.

just read Bob Tisdale’s work on el nino it explains it all, including why la nina’s do not cancel out an el nino.

Matt G
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 2:35 pm

That’s why, when the AMO is removed from global temperatures there is no trend during the satellite era. The AMO and step up from strong El Nino’s are linked together with the AMOC.

“This ocean current system transports a substantial amount of heat energy from the tropics and Southern Hemisphere toward the North Atlantic, where the heat is then transferred to the atmosphere. Changes in this ocean circulation likely have a profound impact on many aspects of the global climate system.
There is growing evidence that fluctuations in Atlantic sea surface temperatures, hypothesized to be related to fluctuations in the AMOC, have played a prominent role in significant climate fluctuations around the globe on a variety of time scales.”

Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 2:58 pm

Andy:

You state that all El Nino event are natural events.

NO.

ALL El Nino events are caused by decreases in the amount SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, either due to human “Clean Air”: efforts, or in the aftermath of a large volcanic eruption, which has been observed.

Google “Cause and Timings of El Nino Events, 1850-present”

Matt G
Reply to  Burl Henry
January 3, 2018 3:02 pm

Nonsense, there is no link with volcanic eruptions and ENSO. Volcanic eruptions are much bigger than human contributions of SO2 aerosols and there are none of the latter over the Tropical ocean where El Nino events form.

Reply to  Matt G
January 3, 2018 5:35 pm

Matt G.

No, not nonsense.

There have been 45 El Ninos identified since 1850,12 of which immediately followed the fallout of the stratospheric SO2 aerosols from a large volcanic eruption.

Google “Volcanic Eruptions may Effect El Nino Onset” for a discussion on this

MarkW
Reply to  Burl Henry
January 3, 2018 4:33 pm

El Nino’s have been happening for centuries, long before man started putting SO2 into the atmosphere.

Matt G
Reply to  Burl Henry
January 3, 2018 6:29 pm

The Walker Circulation indirectly causes El Nino’s and La Nina’s.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/walker-circulation-ensos-atmospheric-buddy

1) How do you explain that SO2 changes the Walker Circulation?
2) How do you explain that decreasing SO2 levels increase clouds in El Nino?
3) How do you explain that these events have been found using proxies for many thousands of years and have been more frequent before.
4) How do you explain that during the coldest periods frequent strong El Nino’s were found?
5) How do you explain when the El Nino events have become stronger during more positive AMO phases?
6) How do you explain that the majority of El Nino’s didn’t occur around declining SO2 levels at all.
7) Human SO2 aerosols don’t survive over ocean at all and form sulfuric acid almost immediately.
8) How do you explain during the warming in the early 20th century, SO2 levels increased with a period of increasing El Nino’s?

All you have is a coincidence of some occurring after volcanic eruptions occurred. There is no evidence at all they cause El Nino’s, never-mind have any influence on them.

Reply to  Matt G
January 3, 2018 8:50 pm

Matt G:

Wow, a long list of questions!.

1) How do you explain that SO2 causes the Walker circulation?

Decreases in SO2 aerosol levels causes warming to occur, which drives the Walker circulation.

2) How do you explain that decreasing SO2 levels increase clouds in an El Nino?

The warmer air can hold more moisture, which leads to more cloud formation

3) How do you explain that these events have been found using proxies for many thousands of years, and have been more frequent before?.

El Ninos follow essentially all large volcanic eruptions (VEI4 and larger), unless they occur during an El Nino, in which case the existing El Nino would be expected to be strengthened. Periods of extensive volcanic activity have been frequent before.

4) How do you explain that during the coldest periods frequent strong El Ninos were found?

The coldest periods were due to high levels of volcanic SO2 aerosols in the stratosphere, due to multiple eruptions.. As they settled out, El Ninos occurred.

6) How do you explain that the majority of El Ninos didn’t occur during declining SO2 levels at all?

I have found NONE that did not occur during a period of declining SO2 levels (Google “Climate Change Deciphered)

7) Human SO2 aerosols don’t survive over the oceans at all, and form Sulfuric Acid almost immediately?

SO2 aerosols ARE mists (droplets) of Sulfuric Acid.

8) How do you explain the warming in the early 20th century? SO2 levels increased with a period of increasing El Nino’s.

I have not reviewed the data regarding the amount of SO2 increase in the early 20th century, but I can do so if you can give me the span of years that you are referring to.

However, between 1900 and 1920, for example, there were 5 recessions and 2 large volcanic eruptions (Santa Maria-1902) and Novarupta-1912) all of which caused periods of warming resulting in El Ninos.

“There is no evidence at all that they (volcanoes) cause El Ninos, never mind have any influence on them”

Since 1850, there have been 14 identified VEI5/VEI6 eruptions, of which at least 10 are clearly followed by an El Nino. This us strong evidence, and the cause is easily explainable.

Also Google “Volcanic eruptions may effect El Nino onset”

.,

Matt G
Reply to  Burl Henry
January 4, 2018 7:59 am

1) How do you explain that SO2 causes the Walker circulation?

Decreases in SO2 aerosol levels causes warming to occur, which drives the Walker circulation.

The Walker circulation has two main different stages and therefore decreases in SO2 aerosols can’t drive both. There has been no decreases in SO2 aerosols in the stratosphere since after the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 reduced back to normal levels. The Walker circulation drives fine with very high SO2 aerosol levels during major eruptions and any amount of SO2 has no effect. The warmer SST’s forming El Nino’s come from ocean circulation down to about 300 meters below the surface and are not warmed by the atmosphere.

2) How do you explain that decreasing SO2 levels increase clouds in an El Nino?

The warmer air can hold more moisture, which leads to more cloud formation

There are no detectable SO2 levels over the Tropical ocean except at stratospheric heights. The warmer surface waters caused by movement below the surface, gives the warmer air leading to significant cloud formation. A tiny change in SO2 can’t influence no cloud formation during an La Nina for example into huge cloud formations over thousands of miles. Any tiny change is not detectable from normal.

3) How do you explain that these events have been found using proxies for many thousands of years, and have been more frequent before?.

El Ninos follow essentially all large volcanic eruptions (VEI4 and larger), unless they occur during an El Nino, in which case the existing El Nino would be expected to be strengthened. Periods of extensive volcanic activity have been frequent before.

This is contradictory and makes no sense. You are saying decreasing SO2 levels cause El Ninos, yet increasing SO2 levels strengthen them. Volcanic activity has been generally quiet since 1991 since El Nino’s mainly increased in strength and number compared to previously. Volcanic activity was more frequent during periods of mainly La Nina’s over the last century.

4) How do you explain that during the coldest periods frequent strong El Ninos were found?

The coldest periods were due to high levels of volcanic SO2 aerosols in the stratosphere, due to multiple eruptions.. As they settled out, El Ninos occurred.

The coldest periods were due to low solar activity, cold AMOC phase and frequent meridional jet stream. High levels of volcanic SO2 occurred occasionally, but were not the cause of general long cooler periods. They were found during colder periods so if they settled out would had been found during warmer periods.

6) How do you explain that the majority of El Ninos didn’t occur during declining SO2 levels at all?

I have found NONE that did not occur during a period of declining SO2 levels (Google “Climate Change Deciphered)

SO2 stratospheric levels had been increasing since the 1960’s up to the early 1990’s comparing with previous decades.

7) Human SO2 aerosols don’t survive over the oceans at all, and form Sulfuric Acid almost immediately?

SO2 aerosols ARE mists (droplets) of Sulfuric Acid.

My point being they are washed out of the troposphere almost immediately into the ocean via especially mist, fog, drizzle and rain and have no influence diluted in a huge body of water.

8) How do you explain the warming in the early 20th century? SO2 levels increased with a period of increasing El Nino’s.

I have not reviewed the data regarding the amount of SO2 increase in the early 20th century, but I can do so if you can give me the span of years that you are referring to.

However, between 1900 and 1920, for example, there were 5 recessions and 2 large volcanic eruptions (Santa Maria-1902) and Novarupta-1912) all of which caused periods of warming resulting in El Ninos.

“There is no evidence at all that they (volcanoes) cause El Ninos, never mind have any influence on them”

Since 1850, there have been 14 identified VEI5/VEI6 eruptions, of which at least 10 are clearly followed by an El Nino. This us strong evidence, and the cause is easily explainable.

The 1902 and 1912 eruptions had El nino’s developing before they started, so they had nothing to do with eruptions.

The 1982/83 eruption occurred during the same time of a strong El Nino so had nothing to do with it.

The 1991 eruption had a La Nina occur after it and it wasn’t until 6/7 years later until the strong El Nino 1997/98 occurred.

The strong El Nino recently has not been influenced by any volcano effecting the stratosphere since 1991.

Only about 7 major eruptions have been notably detected in the stratosphere since 1900. There is no strong evidence at all, no mechanism and can’t distinguish from normal natural ENSO.

This chart shows the period in question and the AMO warming indirectly caused the early 20th century warming.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1900/to:1940/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1940

Reply to  Matt G
January 4, 2018 4:56 pm

Matt G:

No time to respond just now, but it would be helpful if you were to read “Climate Change Deciphered”, which you obviously have not.

I will get back to you later, many of your comments were simply wrong.

Matt G
Reply to  Burl Henry
January 7, 2018 3:48 am

If you think any of these comments are wrong then it is your problem because they can easily be backed up. I have seen the reference to your link.

Reply to  Matt G
January 7, 2018 7:22 am

Matt G:

Okay, here are my comments on your comments, which are mostly wrong.

You state “The warmer SST’s forming El Ninos come from ocean circulation down to about 300 meters below the surface and are not warmed by the atmosphere”

Nonsense. You are saying that circulating oceanic currents warm the SST, and not the atmosphere. This is completely backwards

Sea Surface temperatures warm up because of reductions in the amount dimming SO2 aerosols in either the stratosphere or the troposphere, which increases the intensity of the incoming solar radiation. All El Ninos coincide with a reduction in the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.

You state “There are no detectable SO2 levels over the Tropical ocean except at stratospheric heights”

This, too, is nonsense. Whenever there is a large volcanic eruption, the SO2 aerosols spread around the globe, including over the Tropics. In the absence of any stratospheric aerosols, anthropogenic SO2 aerosols in the Troposphere also spread around the world When a recession occurs, the amount of industrial SO2 .aerosols emitted is reduced, and the cleaner air allows greater insolation to occur. There is an average time lag of 7-8 months after the start of a recession before an El Nino forms, as the SST’s warm up.

You say “You are saying decreasing SO2 levels cause El Ninos, yet increasing SO2 levels strengthen them”

No, I am NOT saying that increasing SO2 levels strengthen El Ninos, just the opposite. I had suggested that, if a volcanic eruption occurred during an El Nino, the existing
El Nino could be strengthened by the El Nino caused by the settling out of all of the stratospheric SO2 aerosols. However, I cannot find any examples where that has ever happened. In retrospect, the dimming caused by a large volcanic eruption would quench any existing El Nino

You state “The coldest periods were due to low solar activity, cold AMOC phase and frequent meridional jet stream. High levels of Volcanic activity occurred occasionally, but were not the cause of long cooler periods”

Again, more nonsense. For example, the 600 year long Little Ice Age was due to a spate of large (VEI6 & VEI7) volcanic eruptions (11) that spewed huge amounts of dimming SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, and NOT the causes that you cited.

Regarding human SO2 aerosols, you state “My point being they are washed out of the air almost immediately”

As pointed out in my “Climate Change Deciphered” essay, this is true of intermittent sources ONLY.

SO2 emissions from most Anthropogenic sources such as from Power Plants, factories, smelters, foundries, home heating units, internal combustion engines, etc. are constantly being renewed, so that they have an essentially infinite lifetime, ending only when the sources are shut down, or modified to reduce emissions.

“The 1902 and 1912 eruptions had El Ninos developing before they started, so they had nothing to do with the eruptions”.

The El Ninos prior to the 1902 and 1912 eruptions were caused by recessions, and were quenched by the eruptions. The El Ninos caused by the eruptions, in each case, occurred 24 months later.

“The 1982/1983 eruption occurred at the same time as a strong El Nino so had nothing to do with it”

The strong Mar 1982 Jul 1983 El Nino was caused by the 7-81 11-82 recession. In this instance, the Apr 1982 eruption of El Chicon did not form an El Nino, primarily because there was a 10 Megaton increase in anthropogenic SO2 emissions between 1982 and 1983.

“The 1991 eruption had a La Nina occur after it, and it wasn’t until 6/7 years later until the strong El Nino 1997/98 occurred”

The May 1991 Aug 1992 El Nino was caused by the Jul 1990 Mar 1991 recession. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in Jun 1991 (and Mount Hudson in Aug 1991) caused the Sep 1994- Apr 1995 El Nino. The La Nina that you refer to did not occur until Jul 1995, and was caused by the eruption of the Rabual volcano.

To be continued.

Reply to  Matt G
January 7, 2018 3:36 pm

Matt G:

To continue my earlier comments on your comments:

“until the strong El Nino of 1997/98 occurred”

This El Nino was caused by a 7 million ton reduction in anthropogenic SO2 aerosol levels between 1996 and 1997, due to Clean Air efforts. Like the temporary warming resulting from a recession, the warming from the reduced SO2 levels led to the El Nino.

It ended when the Soufrie eruption of 1998, and the concurrent Nyamuragira effusive emissions put more SO2 into the atmosphere, causing the June 1998- April 2001 La Nina..

“The strong El Nino recently has not been influenced by any volcano effecting the atmosphere since 1991”

Actually, there were 2 eruptions since 1991 which resulted in El Ninos (Anathan, in April of 2005, which caused the Aug 2006-Feb 2007 El Nino, and Kasatochi, in Aug 2008, which caused the May 2009-May 2010 El Nino). However, these eruptions had nothing to do with the recent strong Oct 2014-Jun 2016 El Nino.

Here, I am data limited, with volcanic SO2 levels only to 2015, and anttropogenic SO2 levels only to 2014. Between 2013 and 2014, volcanic SO2 levels dropped by 4.8 million tons, which should have caused some warming. Since temporary increases in average global temperatures are always due to reduced atmospheric SO2 levels, it would be expected that the bulk of the warming was due to reduced anthropogenic emissions because of Clean Air efforts.

“Only about 7 major eruptions have been notably detected in the stratosphere since 1900. There is no strong evidence at all , no mechanism and can’t distinguish from normal ENSO.

Since 1900, I have identified at least 10 eruptions that have caused an El Nino. And there IS a mechanism for the formation of an El Nino after stratospheric volcanic SO2 aerosols have settled out, although I would prefer not to disclose it at this time.

I am sure that you can cite peer-reviewed papers to support your views, but I predict that most will ultimately be proven to be wrong. None of them consider the effects of reducing SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere.

Matt G
Reply to  Burl Henry
January 14, 2018 5:04 am

The first thing is I disagree with all of it.

It is not worth discussing further until you understand the mechanism involved in ENSO.

Reply to  Matt G
January 14, 2018 7:16 am

Matt G:

“It is not worth discussing further until you understand the mechanisms involved in ENSO”

I assure you that I fully understand why an El Nino forms: It is driven by increased warming of the Earth’s surface because of reductions in dimming SO2 aerosol emissions.

Of the 45 known El Ninos since 1850, essentially 100% of them correlate with periods of reduced SO2 aerosol emissions.

It appears that YOU do not fully understand the mechanisms involved in ENSO

John Finn
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 3:37 pm

The ONLY warming has come from the main El Nino events.

El Nino is simply the warm phase of the ENSO CYCLE . Remove the effects of ENSO (and volcanic events) and you are still left with a warming trend. The long term net effect of the ENSO cycle shoud be ZERO. The fact that it’s not ZERO implies the atmosphere (more GHGs?) is able to support higher temperatures.

Christy and Dr. Richard McNider, a professor emeritus at UAH, recently published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences a study that mathematically removed from the satellite temperature record the effects of volcanic eruptions and of El Nino and La Nina Pacific Ocean heating and cooling events. This was done in an attempt to identify that part of the overall warming during the 39-year period that might be attributed to human influences. The 0.155 C per decade trend reported in that study differs from the 0.13 C per decade trend reported here in the Global Temperature Report.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/03/uah-2017-was-third-warmest-year-in-satellite-record/

Matt G
Reply to  John Finn
January 3, 2018 4:22 pm

The correct comment should be the only warming has come from the warming phase of ENSO and AMO. I mentioned more than once now in this thread that removing the AMO from global temperatures leaves NO warming trend.

The warming has come from the AMOC and the planet will not cool until the AMOC changes again and we have another cold lengthy AMO phase.

“The long term net effect of the ENSO cycle should be ZERO.”

There is zero evidence this is even remotely true over such a short period of a few decades. There is no regular cycle like clockwork of ENSO and therefore more El Nino’s or more La Nina’s than previously will cool and warm the Tropics especially, accordingly. Even the PDO is not a regular cycle like clockwork and varies, while step up in global temperatures have been observed immediately after a strong El Nino and only then. The recent warming rate has not changed from the early 20th century, indicating the changing ENSO phase and AMO are the indirect causes.

Reply to  John Finn
January 3, 2018 5:15 pm

Christ, people; we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age. Given the apparent cycles, we need another 5 years or so to see if anything important is going on.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  John Finn
January 4, 2018 2:51 am

ENSO is not a cycle because you can have back to back La nina’s and back to back El nino’s. that’s the first mistake made. also the “cool phase” doesn’t cancel out the displaced warm waters unlike AMO or PDO does.

you also have episodes with predominantly El nino’s and predominantly La nina’s or nutral periods.

there may be a cycle in the loading pattern of ENSO: Paleoclimatology does show more strong El nino’s like we see today during the MWP and a more La nina based pattern during the LIA.

since 1900 the loading pattern is again more El nino. Judith curry has a very explodig graph for this: the running sum of ENSO vs world temperature…
comment image

it even explains the pause where El nino and La nina summed up as nutral… till the El nino of 2016 (not pictured the graph goes to 2014) which made the balance again positive.

it should be interesting to also see running sums of the AMO index and the PDO and see the results.

I would not be surprised to see a correlation when all of this is added up

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 7:15 pm

“As Fig. 1 shows, in the 39 years 1 month from December 1978 to December 2017, the planet has warmed by half a Celsius degree.”

No it doesn’t. Some places have warmed, some have cooled, some have remained relatively static. Averaging all those places together doesn’t give you anything meaningful.

Scottish Sceptic
January 3, 2018 3:11 am

In the 1970s, the world had a smog problem. That was regionalised in industrial areas. In the 1970s governments passed clean air acts. Those acts reduced smog roughly in the period 1970-2000. Between 1970-2000 we saw what is falsely called “unprecedented warming”. That warming largely occurred in very specific regional hotspots about 3days downwind of the large industrial areas where the pollution was reducing.

If that 1970-2000 warming had been due to CO2, because CO2 is well mixed, it would have been evenly spread around the world. Therefore the presence of regional hotspots contradicts the theory of CO2 warming and more or less proves the warming in that period was due to the anti-pollution measures.

Or to put it ironically: “It was the Greens what caused global warming”.

The following is gif showing the relationship:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/@RegionalWarming.gif
If that does not work try this link: http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2018/01/03/acid-rain-and-1970-2000-global-warming/

Ian Magness
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
January 3, 2018 3:33 am

Fascinating SS (unfortunate abbreviation).
Has much (real!) academic work been carried out on this phenomenon? How certain are you of the relationship not just being a conincidence?

observa
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 4:48 am

He doesn’t have to be certain but just show that there’s another reasonable, plausible explanation by the accused in order for a not guilty verdict, despite the prosecution’s alternative interpretation and belief. It’s not up to the no case to prove categorically they’re not guilty when allegations are thrown at them but the other way round. Still if you stack the jury with amenable dullards you can easily get a miscarriage of justice even if the judge advises them correctly.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 4:50 am

Not that I could see. The regional hotspots are treated as “noise”, as natural variation (And then they deny natural variation exists). I did some more work looking to see whether it was possible to detect any yearly pattern and found this:

http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Spring-e1491691816999.png

This shows a distinct change in the average Canada temperature in specific days between 1970-2010 compared to similar periods in the past. These are I believe close to or following a US holiday when either a lot of factories shut down (thereby reducing pollution) … but also there are potentially a lot of cars and aeroplanes.

I think taken together with the regional hotspots, this is enough to conclude that human activity was responsible for the 1970-2000 warming, it seems very likely to be something reducing pollution but it certainly wasn’t CO2.

Johnny Galt
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
January 3, 2018 8:58 am

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2612/can-poor-air-quality-mask-global-warmings-effects/

Here they use the same explanation but in reverse: to show that global warming was masked. In fact, it proves your point that reduction in aerosols did indeed cause the increase in local temps.

donald penman
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
January 3, 2018 10:57 am

Was it the smog that caused the cold weather or was it the cold weather that caused the smog, in the winter of 1962/1963 a thick fog formed over London and spread to the rest of the UK and smokeless fuel etc. was introduced after this time.

Auto
Reply to  donald penman
January 3, 2018 12:42 pm

Donald,
The really bad smog was a decade earlier, I believe; I certainly don’t recall any hugely significant fog in 1962-63; I was living in [West] London then.
There were fogs a few years earlier [maybe 1960 ish] IIRC. But not proper pea-soupers.

Auto

Sandy In Limousin
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
January 3, 2018 1:43 pm

In the UK legislation and regulation concerning air quality go back to the 19th century. Although the link between air pollution and health was well known it wasn’t until the Clean Air Act in 1956 that “smokeless” zones were introduced in towns and cities. At this time there was no real way of easily measuring particulates. Measuring of smoke was done using colour and duration. Amongst other things the 1956 Act did was to move power stations out of city centres (Battersea for example could not have been built after 1956) it reduced sulphur pollution and smoke pollution from household fires. The Act remained in force until 1993 when it and the 1968 Clean Air act incorporated into new legislation. The 1956 Act meant that London killer smogs ended in the 1950s.

The USA had an Air Pollution Control Act in 1955, there have been attempts to control domestic air pollution in France but as wood is the traditional method of domestic heating in France these haven’t been as successful as elsewhere. I believe it is the case that it is permissible to burn wood for domestic heating in Paris with the resulting pollution conveniently blame on diesel engines. The UK has recently discovered that burning wood in domestic woodburners isn’t as environmentally friendly as a gas fire. France is not unusual in Europe.

DWR54
January 3, 2018 3:31 am

…little more than one-third of the 3.3 C°/century predicted with “substantial confidence” by IPCC in 1990..

They changed that at every new update, based on observations. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous to say the least.

From IPCC AR4 (2007):

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

The warming rate in UAH since 2007 is +0.35 deg. C per decade. Way above what IPCC AR4 forecast. Indeed, warming would need to reduce substantially over the next decade in order for the 2007 IPCC projection not to be wrong in a warm direction!

Ian Magness
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 3:39 am

DWR, as I suspect you know full well, 10 years of data (even in the rare event that it is not tampered with), inclusive of a huge El Nino, is far too small a weather sample period to draw any meaningful conclusions from. Further, the point about past IPCC forecasts is that they were extremely instrumental in influencing the staggeringly expensive green policies that we are now lumbered with across the western world. They mattered far more than any recent downgrades.

Bellman
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 3:55 am

DWR, as I suspect you know full well, 10 years of data (even in the rare event that it is not tampered with), inclusive of a huge El Nino, is far too small a weather sample period to draw any meaningful conclusions from.

Quite correct. But only a few days ago Sheldon Walker was using a ten year period to prove a slow down, and Lord Monckton himself used a 7 year period to claim there had been dramatic global cooling.

DWR54
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 3:55 am

I do agree that 10 years of data is too short a period over which to judge a long term trend. As I mention in a further post, including the citation, the IPCC FAR (1990) in fact predicted warming of “… about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade)…”; not “3.3 C°/century… with “substantial confidence”” as stated by Lord Monckton above.

A warming of 0.5 C/dec since 1979 is equal to 0.13 C/dec; well within the 1990 IPCC prediction’s lower error range (0.1 C/dec). It is also the lowest rate of warming in any global temperature data set, whether surface or satellite TLT.

AndyG55
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 3:59 am

“inclusive of a huge El Nino”

El Ninos are the ONLY way they can show any warming.

They MUST use them, especially the 1998 step and the 2015/2016 transient.

As shown above.. Without them.. NO WARMING.

billw1984
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 4:41 am

In the last IPCC report they did not give a median estimate (at least not in a prominent place in the report or summary) as for the first time it would have been lower. And the IPCC report came out after a number of observational estimates with low numbers were published in top tier journals. This got less attention than it should have IMO. Many are starting to acknowledge that the GCMs are a bit over-heated, but that was also not a highlight of the IPCC report.

knr
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 7:06 am

You are right they keep changing the ‘story’, odd really given the dramatic claims of ‘settled’ science and unquestionably accuracy they also make. Almost as if in fact it’s far from settled and they are just taken a guess.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 7:31 am

Mr Bellman, please look at all of those graphs and note the Value of 1997/1998.
What more proof do you need that it was warmer than now?
Or are you going to explain that away as well?
The NASA data has been adjusted DOWN for 1997/98.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 7:59 am

The original RSS charts show the same thing as the NASA/NOAA Reports used to show, even the modified ones still show it warmer.

Bellman
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 12:46 pm

A C Osborn

please look at all of those graphs and note the Value of 1997/1998.
What more proof do you need that it was warmer than now?
Or are you going to explain that away as well?

I’m not sure what graphs you are referring to. Are you still discussing your point from a few articles back where you claim NASA or NOAA dropped 1998 by 2.4C? The one you said you weren’t going to discuss further? Otherwise I’ve no idea what your point is.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 1:32 pm

As usual you obfuscate, yes I said I would not discuss it further on that blog and I did not.
But here we have Satellite data, figures 3,4,5 & 6 all showing that 1997/98 was warmer than 2015/16.
But of course you cannot see it can you?
Or would you like to admit that you can actually see it?
If so do you now believe that 1997/98 was warmer or not?

Bellman
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 3, 2018 3:04 pm

A C Osborn

But here we have Satellite data, figures 3,4,5 & 6 all showing that 1997/98 was warmer than 2015/16.
But of course you cannot see it can you?
Or would you like to admit that you can actually see it?
If so do you now believe that 1997/98 was warmer or not?

Right, so you are saying that in the UAH data 1997/98 is warmer than 2015/16. I’m not sure what this has to do with your original claim, but in any event you are wrong regarding UAH. The graphs you are pointing to do not include 2016.

In fact the average temperature for 1997/98 was 0.24C.
The average temperature for 2015/16 was 0.39C.

So no, I don’t admit 1997/98 was warmer.

Reply to  Ian Magness
January 4, 2018 5:23 am

In reply to Bellman, in my testimony to Congress in 2009 I stated, correctly, that in the previous nine years there had been cooling. I did not draw from this the conclusion that, therefore, there was no such thing as global warming. I drew the correct conclusion that so long a period showing a slight cooling would have the effect of bringing down the long-term trend – a point that is well illustrated in the head posting.

Bellman
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 4, 2018 7:14 am

In reply to Bellman, in my testimony to Congress in 2009 I stated, correctly, that in the previous nine years there had been cooling. I did not draw from this the conclusion that, therefore, there was no such thing as global warming.

I didn’t say you concluded there was no such thing as global warming. I pointed out elsewhere you said we may warm by just 0.5F or less by the end of the century, though you went on to say that there might be as much as 2F by the end of the century.

Incidentally, it was seven years not nine.

I drew the correct conclusion that so long a period showing a slight cooling would have the effect of bringing down the long-term trend – a point that is well illustrated in the head posting.

I think we all know what conclusion you wanted people to draw. You graph was captioned, what “global warming?”

Now you are calling this a “slight” cooling. At the time you said temperatures were falling “rapidly”, and claimed, quite wrongly, that these seven years had wiped out a third of all warming over the previous 30 years.

I can’t find where at the time you pointed out that the only effect of these seven years would be a slight decrease in the long term trend.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 4, 2018 3:01 pm

I am amazed at your lack of reading comperehension.
I specifically stated Figures 3,4,5 & 6 which are all RSS datasets and you quote UAH.
You will use any excuse to avoid the fact that 1997/98 was warmer than now.
But that is OK as just on the last post everyone can see what you do.

Bellman
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 4, 2018 4:58 pm

A C Osborn

I specifically stated Figures 3,4,5 & 6 which are all RSS datasets and you quote UAH.

Sorry, my bad, though figure 6 does show UAH.

You will use any excuse to avoid the fact that 1997/98 was warmer than now.
But that is OK as just on the last post everyone can see what you do.

I’ve still no idea what your point it. You asked my if 1997/98 was warmer than 2015/2016. I pointed out that they didn’t show any data for 2016, and that in the UAH data 1997/98 was cooler than 2015/16. This will be even more true for RSS data.

So could you state specifically, without personal attacks, what point you are making with regard to figures 3, 4, 5, and 6?

Bellman
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 4, 2018 5:13 pm

A C Osborn

Here’s my graph of RSS annual temperatures with the 4 years you were asking about marked in red, if that’s any help.
comment image

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 4, 2018 5:20 pm

“I’ve still no idea what your point it.”
Nor have I. The original claim was
“But here we have Satellite data, figures 3,4,5 & 6 all showing that 1997/98 was warmer than 2015/16.
But of course you cannot see it can you?”

But as Bellman rightly says, those figures don’t include 2015/16 at all, whether they are RSS or UAH. They cover MoB’s 225 months of “pause”.

The only figures that do cover 2015/6 are 1 & 2, and they show the latter period higher.

Bellman
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 4, 2018 5:59 pm

Nick Stokes

This discussion started off a few days ago in another post where A C Osborn was claiming that NASA had adjusted 1997 down by 2.4C. This all seems to be based on an earlier assessment of the global temperature.

I’ve tried to explain that changing the absolute base temperature would have no effect on the relative anomalies, but he won’t accept that, and now seems to think that the RSS data demonstrates this in some way.

Reply to  Ian Magness
January 5, 2018 1:54 am

In response to the vexatious and furtively pseudonymous “Bellman”, here is my full written Congressional testimony of 2009:

“As a Prime Ministerial policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher, inter alia I modeled the economic interactions of taxes and benefits on low-income households with the aim of eradicating poverty, and investigated scientific frauds. I have written and lectured about the mathematics and physics of climate sensitivity. I advise institutions on climate change.

“I warn this honorable House that any proposal to inflict billions of dollars of new taxation on all citizens by charging selectively-disfavored industries for arbitrarily-rationed permits to emit a harmless and beneficial trace gas that is necessary to all life on Earth and has little effect on its surface temperature will fall cruelly and disproportionately upon the poor, will threaten their very lives, will gravely diminish the liberty that is the glory of your great nation, will render difficult if not unlawful the pursuit of happiness, will raise little net revenue if the poor are adequately compensated by subsidy, will damagingly distort the labor market by widening and deepening the unemployment trap that already gives millions of your most helpless citizens a better income on welfare than in work, will imprison the poorest earners in a perpetual poverty trap by inflicting upon them a crippling marginal taxation and benefit-withdrawal rate that powerfully deters them from increasing their earnings, will be complex, extravagant, and costly, will savagely compound the adverse effects of recession, of excessive public and private indebtedness, of fiscal incontinence, and of monetary laxity on industries and employment, will create soi-disant “green” jobs by the thousand while destroying real jobs by the million, will establish an unstable and artificial derivatives market in hot air that will enrich a handful of portly middle-men while impoverishing the people, will automatically and ineluctably defeat its own objective by so depressing economic activity that the “market” price of carbon dioxide will tend rapidly to fall as close to zero as it has done in both of Europe’s attempts at a cap-and-trade scheme, will directly encourage fraud by incentivizing not only both parties to every transaction but also the regulatory authorities recklessly to overstate the magnitude of that transaction, will set your enterprises at a profound competitive disadvantage against nations that steer wisely clear of purposeless restrictions on or taxation of the very air we breathe out, will accelerate the transfer of wealth from your citizens’ pockets to other nations’ governments by way of boondoggles such as the UN’s “Clean Development Mechanism”, and will appreciably increase global carbon-dioxide emissions by transferring US jobs and manufactures to less efficient nations whose emissions per unit of production are many times greater than your own, and by increasing poverty and consequently birth-rates and consequently carbon-dioxide emissions worldwide, thereby exerting at prodigious and tragic cost a double influence on the global climate that will be precisely the opposite of that which was, however piously, intended.

“Any restriction on the emission of carbon dioxide is unnecessary. It is simple to establish theoretically, and has been so established, that the UN’s climate panel has exaggerated the true effect of carbon dioxide enrichment on global temperature sevenfold. To confirm that theoretical result it is simple to verify empirically, and has been so verified by direct and repeated satellite observation, that the diminution over time in the outgoing long-wave radiation from the Earth is one-seventh of that which the UN’s computer games had been instructed to predict. Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the air at less than half the rate the UN had imagined. Not one of its games had predicted the rapid global cooling of the past seven years. Sea surface temperatures have fallen for five years. Sea level has not risen for three years, and is predicted to rise by little more than a foot this century. Worldwide hurricane intensity in October 2008 was at its least for 30 years. Global sea ice shows little trend in 30 years. The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are thickening. The Sahara is greening. There is no “climate crisis”. The correct policy response to the non-problem of “global warming” is not to cap or tax carbon dioxide emissions. It is to have the courage to do nothing.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 5, 2018 10:17 am

Mr Bellman & Nick Stokes thank you so much.
Especially you Mr Bellman.
Please note the RSS v4 Chart that you have supplied.
Note the Anomaly Value of 1997, does it or does it not equal approximately 0.6C?
Note the Anomaly for 2016, is it not just under 0.75C

Now compare that to the original values in the RSS charts 3, 4, & 5.
Are they not 0.9C/0.9C/0.9C

You have made abundantly clear the what I was talking about.
The RSS v4 value has been lowered by a further 0.30C in v4 to make 1997 lower than 2016.

You could not have provided a better demonstration.

Perhaps MR Stokes would like to discuss how baselines & anomalies work as Mr Bellman does not appear to see the problem.

Bellman
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 5, 2018 1:16 pm

A C Osborn

Now compare that to the original values in the RSS charts 3, 4, & 5.
Are they not 0.9C/0.9C/0.9C

You have made abundantly clear the what I was talking about.
The RSS v4 value has been lowered by a further 0.30C in v4 to make 1997 lower than 2016.

You are really not getting this are you. Charts 4 & 5 are showing RSS 4. They do not show 2016.
Chart 3 does not show 2016. You are looking at the peak single month at 0.9C in 1998. The satellite data, both UAH and RSS have always showed 1997 as being much cooler than shown in the surface data. NOAA said 1997 was the warmest year up to that point, and they still show 1997 was warmest up to that point.

No dataset has ever shown 1998 as being warmer than 2016. I don’t know how to make it clearer – you are simply misunderstanding the difference between what NOAA said about 1997 in 1997 and what they say now.

Bellman
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 5, 2018 1:57 pm

Monckton of Brenchley

In response to the vexatious and furtively pseudonymous “Bellman”, here is my full written Congressional testimony of 2009

I think we are talking about different hearings. The one where you made the projections for the end of the century was on 25th March 2009 – “PREPARING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: ADAPTATION POLICIES AND PROGRAMS”

https://web.archive.org/web/20090430022404/https://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090325/testimony_monckton.pdf

A C Osborn
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 5, 2018 3:04 pm

I will just keep repeating it between the graphs above and your graph they dropped the 1997/8 global temperature by 0.3C and you cannot see anything wrong with that.
Is there anything that they could do to the past data that you would NOT be OK with?

Bellman
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 5, 2018 3:27 pm

A C Osborn

I will just keep repeating it between the graphs above and your graph they dropped the 1997/8 global temperature by 0.3C and you cannot see anything wrong with that.

My graph showed annual temperatures, Monckton’s shows monthly temperatures.

The warmest month during 1998 in RSS 4 is April at 0.89 C.

The warmest month during 1998 in RSS 3.3 is April at 0.85 C.

RSS 4 has actually made the peak slightly warmer.

The average annual temperatures are as follows

RSS 3.3
1997: 0.10C
1998: 0.55C

RSS 4
1997: 0.11C
1998: 0.58C

They did not drop 1997/98 by 0.3C, they slightly increased it.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 5, 2018 3:46 pm

Mr Bellman, thank you for the explanation of the differences between the graphs.
I stand corrected in this case.
But not in the case of the NASA global data.
Perhaps you can provide the same kind of explanation for those changes?

Bellman
Reply to  Ian Magness
January 5, 2018 4:57 pm

Mr Bellman, thank you for the explanation of the differences between the graphs.
I stand corrected in this case.

I’m glad to have helped.

As to the original question, I’m not sure I can summon the energy to go through all that again.

tom s
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 8:58 am

I’m scared. Do you have a safe room I can borrow?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 11:49 am

Sorry, but what they should be *changing* is their garbage “theory,” not the amount of warming supposedly attributable thereto. The fact that they ARE continuously reducing the amount of “warming” in the models yet still cling to their original “story” about the supposed “cause” of the warming tells me they they are groping about like a blind man looking for a black cat that’s actually in a different room than the one they’re searching in.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  DWR54
January 4, 2018 3:08 am

to me a 10 year period is valid, as long as you take everything in account: for that period: then you have to say the period ends with an el nino and that the running sum of El nino is thus positive during that episode.

the same way the 10 year period of 2002-2012 saw a near neutral running sum of Enso.

El nino happened we will see a new “step up” that’s as clear as it is.
it’s something i said a year earlier. and i didn’t need models to say that i just based it on the investigations there are about el nino driving the world’s temperature.

if there are no countering La nina’s the next one will cause another step up. it’s that simple. As long as the running sum is “Nino favorable” global temp will rise.

DWR54
January 3, 2018 3:45 am

Lord Monckton:

…that is equivalent to 1.28 C°/century, or little more than one-third of the 3.3 C°/century predicted with “substantial confidence” by IPCC in 1990..

IPCC FAR, 1990, Policymakers’ summary:

Based on current model results, we predict: under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade)… This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the end of the next century…

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

Where is the quoted figure of “…3.3 C°/century predicted with “substantial confidence…”” found in the IPCC FAR, 1990 please?

DWR54
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 12:06 pm

Replying to my own post because no one else here seems to have found the mysterious quote, alleged by Lord Monckton to have originated in the IPCC 1990 report, stating “…3.3 C°/century [warming] predicted with “substantial confidence…”

Where is it? Did he just make this up off the top of his head? Is this how true ‘scepticism’ works?

MarkW
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 4:35 pm

Interesting how the troll assumes the fact that it is being ignored as proof that it is right.

Reply to  DWR54
January 4, 2018 5:29 am

In reply to the furtively anonymous “DWR54”, p. xxiv of IPCC (1990) says: “The numbers given below are based on high-resolution models, scaled to be consistent with our best estimate of global mean warming of 1.8 C by 2030 [compared with pre-industrial temperatures] … the numbers below should be reduced by 30% for the low estimate or increased by 50% for the high estimate.”

There had been 0.45 K global warming in the industrial era, so IPCC was predicting 1.35 K of warming over 4.1 decades, equivalent to 3.3 K/century. In the passages cited by “DWR54”, IPCC rounded this value to 3 K.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 10, 2018 11:43 am

There had been 0.45 K global warming in the industrial era, so IPCC was predicting 1.35 K of warming over 4.1 decades, equivalent to 3.3 K/century.

Sorry I’m a bit late in noticing this, but the claim that there has been 0.45 K of warming in the industrial era does not appear to be what the IPCC were saying. On page xxii they say the best estimate is for 0.3C / decade and that that will result in a rise of about 1C from present to 2025, or about 2C from the pre-industrial period.

This would imply they are using a figure of about 1C warming from pre-industrial to present, and the graph on page xxii also shows about 1C warming by 1990.

Taking this rough estimate along with the 1.8C by 2030 quoted on page xxiv would give an estimate of only 2C / century to 2030.

I think the 0.45 C figure comes from page 199, where a value of 0.45 +/- 0.15C is given for warming since the late 19th century, but this is clearly not the figure being used to describe the model warming since the pre-industrial period.

Javier
January 3, 2018 3:58 am

As I was telling Nick Stokes over other thread,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/30/is-the-recent-global-warming-slowdown-real-or-is-it-fake-news/comment-page-1/#comment-2705181
comment image

Models show a warming rate from 2000 of 2.25°C/century. Observations from 1950 show a warming rate of 1.17°C/century, with no evidence of acceleration.

Models predict almost double warming that is being observed. The disparity between predicted and observed is only going to get worse with time. As Lord Monckton says, the prediction was 3°C/century in 1990. Predictions are coming down, observations are not going up, yet alarmism is growing. Not rational.

DWR54
Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 5:49 am

Javier

Models show a warming rate from 2000 of 2.25°C/century. Observations from 1950 show a warming rate of 1.17°C/century, with no evidence of acceleration.

Using the RCP4.5 data from KNMI and the combined surface data sets (HadCRU, GISS and NCDC, which is the metric used by the IPCC), and setting everything to 1961-90, gives considerably different results.

Using annual figures, the modelled warming rate from 1950-2017 is 1.5 C/century and the observed warming rate is 1.3 C/century (assumes 2017 complete as per November values). Not a huge difference.

Likewise, again using annual figures, the modelled warming rate I get from 2000-2017 is 2.1 C/century versus 1.9 C/century observed. Again, not a huge difference.

Javier
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 6:01 am

the modelled warming rate from 1950-2017 is 1.5 C/century and the observed warming rate is 1.3 C/century … Not a huge difference.

No difference is expected between models and observations for past climate. The lack of difference is a requisite and thus uninformative.

the modelled warming rate I get from 2000-2017 is 2.1 C/century versus 1.9 C/century observed.

A strong convergence during the 2014-2016 El Niño doesn’t hide a complete lack of convergence during the 2003-2014 period. Observations spent 90% of their time outside the 25-75% model average range and are back there after the El Niño ended.

That’s a damning reality that cannot be hidden by cherry picking dates. Models are wrong, wrong, wrong. Not surprising really. Why should they have been right other than chance?

RWturner
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 8:13 am

Predictions are hard, especially about the future…

DWR54
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 12:00 pm

Javier

No difference is expected between models and observations for past climate. The lack of difference is a requisite and thus uninformative.

In which case, why did you bring up the subject of modelled warming rates since 1950?

That’s a damning reality that cannot be hidden by cherry picking dates.

I just used the same date ranges you quoted. So if they were cherry-picked then they were cherry-picked by you.

All I’m saying is that the trends you quoted in the above post are not borne out by inspection of the data you claim to be citing. We’re supposed to be ‘sceptics’ here on this site, aren’t we? Real sceptics check things. I checked your claims and they were wrong. That’s how real scepticism works, isn’t it?

Javier
Reply to  DWR54
January 3, 2018 12:51 pm

DWR54,

It seems I am not making myself understood.

For models, the trend from 2006 to 2040 can be interpreted as their current long term trend, as models do not include random variability. The blue line in the figure is what models propose should be the long term trend. These dates are not picked. 2006 is the date the model run starts. Prior to that models are just hugging the observations.

For observations the long term trend is the observed trend. I use 1950-2017 because emissions are supposed to have become an important factor only after 1950 as per the IPCC. No picking is done. We could use 1900-2017 dates but then we would be looking at natural warming from 1900-1950. We want to include all anthropogenic warming.

The lack of any evidence that warming is accelerating means the 1950-2017 trend is still valid to project this warming rate to the future to compare with model proposed warming rate (dashed line in the figure).

As the blue line shows about double warming rate as the dashed line, it is clear that observations do not support model predictions. To do so, observations should become significantly different from the linear extrapolation of the 1950-2017 warming. For as long as temperatures continue being compatible with a linear increase (no acceleration), observations do not support models, and CO₂ forcing has probably been overestimated.

My claim can only be wrong if the increase in temperature deviates from linearity and shows an acceleration that converges with model average. It is not the case.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 10:45 am

Not only is it not rational, but still ASSUMES that the warming is caused by rising CO2 levels, when no empirical evidence supports any such assumption, and disregards natural sources that can be identified. (Specifically, see Peter Taylor’s “Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming,” where his references indicate that more then half of the observed warming can be traced to solar influences ALONE.)

The Eco-Fascist camp “can’t explain” the supposed amount of warming without ASSUMING a CO2 “driver,” but only because they’re not going to find what they stubbornly refuse to even look for.

Javier
Reply to  AGW is not Science
January 3, 2018 10:51 am

In logic this is called “argumentum ad ignorantiam.” A fallacy that states that something is true because we cannot think of anything that would make it false. It is clearly not science.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  AGW is not Science
January 3, 2018 11:53 am

@Javier, indeed! As Piers Corbyn so eloquently describes the alarmist argument – “It’s not a cat, so it must be a dog.”

Barbara
Reply to  AGW is not Science
January 3, 2018 1:52 pm

CO2 “driver” has to be kept going or carbon taxes and/or cap-and-trade would not be viable.

Bellman
January 3, 2018 3:59 am

Why do you keep referring to the 1990 models when they have been out of date for over 20 years? If data showed warming at the rate of 3C / century it would show all of the IPCC models were wrong.

Also if we are looking at old failed predictions – Christopher Monckton was predicting in 2009 that we would see less than 0.25C warming over the century. Even the coolest data sets show we are warming at 4 times that rate.

Doug
Reply to  Bellman
January 3, 2018 4:03 am

Wasn’t the science settled in 1990? What have we learned since then?

Bellman
Reply to  Doug
January 3, 2018 4:09 am

Wasn’t the science settled in 1990? What have we learned since then?

Nope. The 1990 IPCC shows a lot of uncertainty. I think it points points out that the models used are simplistic and likely to be revised. Since then the models have improved, there is far more computing power available, and longer and better temperature records.

If the 1990 IPCC report was settled, why do you think there was a need for all the subsequent reports?

Doug
Reply to  Doug
January 3, 2018 4:25 am

Bellman that is a great question why were more reports produced?

Reply to  Doug
January 3, 2018 4:42 am

Bellman wrote “Since then the models have improved, there is far more computing power available, and longer and better temperature records.” Thereby assuming that all that is required for accurate simulation of the climate of this planet is more computing power allied with better data without any shred of evidence to back that assertion. Please indicate the seminal paper demonstrating how deeply non-linear dynamical systems are now accessible through numerical methods.

Ron Long
Reply to  Doug
January 3, 2018 6:01 am

Bellman, the need for the subsequent reports is because a lot of “Scientists” are on the money train and are going to ride it to the end of the tracks. I think the train is pulling into the station now with President Trump waiting. Fun times ahead.

Latitude
Reply to  Doug
January 3, 2018 9:22 am

” Since then the models have improved”……by still being consistently wrong
bless their little hearts

Bellman
Reply to  Doug
January 3, 2018 12:51 pm

cephus0

Bellman wrote “Since then the models have improved, there is far more computing power available, and longer and better temperature records.” Thereby assuming that all that is required for accurate simulation of the climate of this planet is more computing power allied with better data without any shred of evidence to back that assertion.

I made no such assumption. All I did was answer the question about what had changed since the first IPCC report.

However, it would be a reasonable assumption that better models are likely to be more accurate. This post is making exactly that point, the earlier models suggested warming at the rate of 0.3C / decade, later models reduced the rate of warming. As Christopher Monckton’s point is that temperatures are not warming as fast as the initial models suggested, it follows that so far the later models have been more accurate.

Michael of Oz
Reply to  Doug
January 3, 2018 5:16 pm

Bellman, i will give you less inaccurate but not more accurate…Sophist!

Bellman
Reply to  Doug
January 4, 2018 5:23 am

Here’s what the 1990 IPCC said about its predictions:

There are many uncertainties in out predictions particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change, due to our incomplete understanding of :

– sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, which affect predictions of future concentrations

– clouds, which strongly influence the magnitude if climate change

– oceans, which influence the timing and patterns of climate change

– polar ice sheets which affect predictions of sea level rise

These processes are already partially understood, and we are confident that the uncertainties can be reduced by further research. However, the complexity of the system means that we cannot rule out surprises.

Reply to  Doug
January 8, 2018 4:27 am

In reply to the furtively pseudonymous “Bellman”, the reason why the head posting referred to the models as they stood in 1990 is twofold: first, to demonstrate that the models were heavily over-predicting; and secondly, to show the strange difference between the 9.17 K/decade the models are now predicting for the medium term and the 0.33 K/decade they are predicting for the long term, which is exactly what they were predicting for the long as well as medium term in 1990. To halve the medium-term prediction while leaving the long-term prediction unaffected raises questions in a reasonable mind.

Bellman
Reply to  Doug
January 8, 2018 4:13 pm

Monckton of Brenchley

and secondly, to show the strange difference between the [0].17 K/decade the models are now predicting for the medium term and the 0.33 K/decade they are predicting for the long term, which is exactly what they were predicting for the long as well as medium term in 1990.

Sorry, I hadn’t realized that was one of the points you you were making. Presumably it will be appearing in a future post and I’rr reserve judgment until then.

One observation though, you are saying the long term 3.3C / century projection made by the IPCC in 1990 was exactly the same for the mid term. But when you introduced the global warming speedometer you were saying the mid term IPCC 1990 projection was 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] C°/century. Was this a mistake, and why did you acknowledge uncertainty in the projections then, but not now?

AndyG55
Reply to  Bellman
January 3, 2018 4:06 am

“predicting in 2009 that we would see less than 0.25C warming over the century”

We will see where the El Nino settles down to.

I know you HAVE to use that transient as a linear calculation, but really , its not a very intelligent thing to do. !

And to say his prediction is wrong, just as we start to head into a cooling phase, makes you look quite stupid.

Bellman
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 4:17 am

AndyG55,

I didn’t say Monckton’s prediction was wrong, just that so far there’s no evidence to support it.

The El Nino makes little difference in the long run, the trend up to 2015 was 1.11C / century, now it’s 1.28.

Moreover, you keep pointing out that after the 1998 El Nino temperatures remained considerably warmer than before it. Why do you expect temperatures to behave differently after this one?

rbabcock
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 5:40 am

Let’s get real here. Why are you showing temps to the hundredths of a degree C? When you know very well there is absolutely no way to measure the entire globe with that accuracy. Even the satellite 1. Doesn’t measure the entire globe and 2. The temperatures are inferred indirectly mathematically.

You all are quibbling over numbers that mean nothing, since they can’t be proved. How many measuring stations are in Siberia, Northern Canada, tropical Africa, the southern Pacific ocean? Yet I see graphs all the time reporting exact temperatures.

It’s all Bullsh*t.

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 6:17 am

NO, The El Ninos make the ONLY difference.

You have to use the step change at the 1998 El Nino to get a trend. You just proved it.

PiperPaul
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 9:29 am

It’s all Bullsh*t.

Climate alarmism summed up in three words.

bitchilly
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 10:57 am

bellman, the reason the temps won’t remain high after the latest el nino is the amo moving into the cool phase.

Bellman
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 12:57 pm

rbabcock

Let’s get real here. Why are you showing temps to the hundredths of a degree C? When you know very well there is absolutely no way to measure the entire globe with that accuracy.

I wasn’t showing temperatures to a hundredth of a degree, but a rate of warming. But if you don’t like global temperatures expressed to the nearest 100th of a degree, maybe you should complain to Dr Roy Spencer about it. I’m sure no-one believes satellites are accurate to the nearest 100th of a degree, but there are advantages to that level of precision.

Bellman
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 4:23 pm

bitchilly

the reason the temps won’t remain high after the latest el nino is the amo moving into the cool phase.

Could you explain what you mean?

As far as I can tell the AMO was cool during the 60s to the late 90s, a period when temperatures were rising, and has been warm since then, when temperatures continued to rise, or according to some slowed down. If it continues to oscillate at the usual rate it won’t turn cool again for another 20 years.

Bellman
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 4:43 pm

bitchilly,

Sorry about the last post. I think you meant temperatures will cool when the AMO starts to decline, not when it moves into a cool phase.

billw1984
Reply to  Bellman
January 3, 2018 4:52 am

I agree that it is valuable to look at the numbers from more recent IPCC reports as well. However, many of the true believers among the climate scientists will argue that the 1990 estimates were not really wrong as our understanding of the amounts of GHGs and their effects have changed since the 1990 report. But, they will rarely actually acknowledge that the news is improving since that report came out. And they will insist that Hansen’s estimates were “really” pretty “good” and they will show how in the wake of the recent El nino that the data lines up pretty well with RCP4.5 projections without discussing that RCP4.5 is lower than what emissions have been and is the 2nd of four concentration pathways and many of these same scientists won’t say a word about all the junk that comes out using RCP8.5 pathway coupled with equally inaccurate biological or economic computer models to predict multiple future armageddons.

Reply to  billw1984
January 5, 2018 2:12 am

Billw is absolutely right. IPCC got it spectacularly wrong by predicting the equivalent of 0.33 K/decade medium-term warming in 1990. That prediction was so wrong that, by 2013, IPCC itself had reduced its medium-term prediction to 0.17 K/decade equivalent. Yet neither IPCC nor the keepers of the constituent models in CMIP5 has commensurately reduced its long-term or equilibrium predictions, which remain at 0.33 K/decade equivalent.

Javier
Reply to  Bellman
January 3, 2018 5:16 am

Why do you keep referring to the 1990 models when they have been out of date for over 20 years?

That is key. When enough time has passed, models are shown wrong. It is silly to believe we know what is going to happen to the climate by 2100. All we know with certainty is that in 20 years the current crop of models will be shown wrong and outdated. We have no idea how climate will be in 2100, and thinking that we do is self-deception.

A conservative estimate is that current trends will continue, because trends continue until they don’t. So conservative estimates have a slightly higher chance of being right. A conservative estimate suggests about 0.1-0.2°C/decade of warming and 1.5-3 mm/year of sea level rise. We have been adapting to that for many decades with great success. I don’t see why it should be a problem to continue adapting.

RWturner
Reply to  Bellman
January 3, 2018 8:20 am

Maybe because we aren’t impressed with revisioned temperature datasets being compared to current models and claiming that “projections” were correct. Predictions and projections concern the future. In 2030, the climate cult will parrot the same lines, “why are you using models from 2017 to show that they overpredicted warming, the current models are very close.” Once the models actually predict somewhat accurately, then maybe they will be useful.

Reply to  RWturner
January 3, 2018 1:15 pm

RW, we don’t have to wait for 2030; IPCC AR5 climate model projections were arbitrarily “cooled” through that period [2035-45?]. Then they left in the insane 2100 projections.

I assume the CMIP-sters are busily adjusting (tuning) aerosol forcings to bring everything in balance before IPCC AR6. Still, expect catastrophe in the out-years.

Reply to  Bellman
January 4, 2018 5:33 am

In reply to Bellman, I do not recollect having predicted in 2009 that global warming would be only 0.25 K/century. I said that at that time the warming rate was equivalent to 0.25 K/century. I have published a series of papers in which the best estimate of warming is around 1.2-1.3 K/century. That warming rate, and no higher rate, is consistent with the officially estimated net anthropogenic forcings in the industrial era.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 4, 2018 12:02 pm

I was taking the claim from your testimony to congress in 2009.

Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the air at less than half the rate that the United Nations had imagined. This century we may warm the world by just half a Fahrenheit degree, if that.

I note you do say “may”, and a little later you are talking about a rise of 2 Fahrenheit

Do not do or spend anything to mitigate or adapt to global warming until global temperature is two Fahrenheit degrees warmer than in 2000. That may not happen for at least a century.

Reply to  Bellman
January 5, 2018 1:59 am

In response to the furtively pseudonymous “Bellman”, I refer to the 1990 predictions by IPCC to the effect that there would be 0.33 K/decade equivalent warming in the medium term because those predictions can now be tested against nearly 30 years of observational data. IPCC itself has had to accept that the models on which it had relied were wrong, and has been constrained to reduce its medium-term prediction from 0.33 to 0.17 K/decade equivalent.

Besides, the mid-range estimate of Charney sensitivity in the CMIP5 models is 3.3 K, and it is expected that a warming of approximately that order will occur in the 21st century – again equivalent to 0.33 K/decade. The models were and are wrong. They were and are running very hot.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 5, 2018 5:28 pm

Monckton of Brenchley

IPCC itself has had to accept that the models on which it had relied were wrong, and has been constrained to reduce its medium-term prediction from 0.33 to 0.17 K/decade equivalent.

Exactly my point. The IPCC has claimed the 0.33 figure was wrong for more than twenty years (and were pointing out it might change in 1990). Pointing out that warming is not happening at the rate of 0.3C / decade is only showing that later IPCC projections are more accurate.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 8, 2018 4:29 am

In reply to the furtively pseudonymous “Bellman”, the IPCC has halved its medium-term prediction because events demonstrated that its original fanciful prediction was twice as high as subsequent observation. However, it has made no reduction in its long-term prediction. That seems dishonest.

Bellman
January 3, 2018 4:04 am

I love these irregular verbs. UAH was “revised” downwards, RSS was “tampered” upwards.

AndyG55
Reply to  Bellman
January 3, 2018 4:08 am

One has good physical reason to do with satellite movements.

The other was purely agenda driven.

Bellman
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 4:27 am

How convenient.

But the changes made to UAH 6 were far more than just correcting for satellite drift, it was a complete change to the code and models used. As Dr Roy Spencer said at the time.

All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data.

Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 1:20 pm

Bellman, UAH 6 underwent lengthy, open and public reviews before finally being adopted. How were RSS changes reviewed? By “Team” members in hidden pal review?

Bellman
Reply to  AndyG55
January 3, 2018 2:47 pm

Bellman, UAH 6 underwent lengthy, open and public reviews before finally being adopted.

Did it? I was under the impression that the source code had never been made public.

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
January 3, 2018 11:37 am

RSS is no longer satellite data. It is a hodgepodge of surface data, satellite data and model output. It is about as far from science as it gets.

AndyG55
Reply to  Richard M
January 3, 2018 11:54 am

” It is about as far from science as it gets.”

Challenging the surface temperature fabrications for distance from real science.. That’s a big ask. !!

Bellman
Reply to  Richard M
January 3, 2018 2:45 pm

RSS is no longer satellite data. It is a hodgepodge of surface data, satellite data and model output.

Is it? I’ve not seen any mention of RSS including surface data. Do you have a reference?

RSS and UAH both use models, I’m not sure how you could use satellite data without some sort of atmospheric model.

Reply to  Bellman
January 4, 2018 5:36 am

In reply to the furtively pseudonymous “Bellman”, in the sentence cited by “Bellman” I wrote: “The UAH data have been revised with the effect of reducing the formerly-evident small warming rate over the period of the Pause, while RSS has been – and continues to be – revised so as to increase the apparent warming rate over the same period.” The word “revised” is used to describe not only the UAH but also the RSS adjustments.

HotScot
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 4, 2018 11:09 am

Chris,

No need to repeat the “furtively pseudonymous” taunt. It’s a public blog not a public school.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 4, 2018 12:12 pm

Monckton of Brenchley

In that particular sentence you refer to changes in both data sets as “revised”, but elsewhere you talk of the RSS as being tampered with, airbrushed, and altered retroactively to suit “the Party Line”. So unless you are also applying that language to the revised UAH data I think my point stands.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 4, 2018 1:56 pm

One of the oddities here is that any change to V3.3 is deemed “tampering” and is some kind of malpractice. Someone mentioned jailing. But why V3.3? Wasn’t that achieved by tampering with V3.2? The logic of this suggests that we should have only V1.0.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 5, 2018 2:18 am

Mr Stokes is characteristically disingenuous. The RSS graph showing a Pause of 18 years 9 months – well beyond the 15-year threshold for an undeniable discrepancy between models’ prediction and observed reality as mentioned in the NOAA State of the Climate report for 2008 – was paraded in Congress to the discomfiture of the “Democrats”, whereupon, within weeks, RSS was announcing a new version of its dataset, just as the HadCRUT4, NCDC and GISS datasets had altered themselves to eradicate the Pause not long before they, too, would have shown at least 15 years with no warming.

One can huff and puff all one likes about the purported justifications for these ex-post-facto revisions, all in the direction of making the warming rate seem greater than the original measurements had shown, but, to the ordinary observer, their timing stinks. It is more and more apparent that the revisions were – at least in part – motivated by a desire to make it look as though observed global warming was within shouting distance of the predictions.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 7, 2018 8:23 am

Monckton of Brenchley January 5, 2018 at 2:18 am
Mr Stokes is characteristically disingenuous. The RSS graph showing a Pause of 18 years 9 months – well beyond the 15-year threshold for an undeniable discrepancy between models’ prediction and observed reality as mentioned in the NOAA State of the Climate report for 2008 – was paraded in Congress to the discomfiture of the “Democrats”, whereupon, within weeks, RSS was announcing a new version of its dataset, just as the HadCRUT4, NCDC and GISS datasets had altered themselves to eradicate the Pause not long before they, too, would have shown at least 15 years with no warming.

As I recall Ted Cruz’s performance in Congress where he showed the RSS graph was in December 2015, several months after the paper explaining the revised method had been submitted to the journal.

One can huff and puff all one likes about the purported justifications for these ex-post-facto revisions, all in the direction of making the warming rate seem greater than the original measurements had shown, but, to the ordinary observer, their timing stinks. It is more and more apparent that the revisions were – at least in part – motivated by a desire to make it look as though observed global warming was within shouting distance of the predictions.

Well the “ordinary observer” would be well served by first getting the timing correct. Also in order for such phenomena as orbital drift to be corrected for they first have to happen, be observed and a proposed mechanism developed. That’s how science works.

Dougmanxx
January 3, 2018 4:20 am

An entire post about “predicted warming” and the “rate of global warming”, and not once do we see: “average global temperature”. The argument is already lost, because everyone allows the “global temperature anomaly” to be the statistic of record. Anomaly is completely meaningless, unless it is also accompanied with the “average temperature” that was used to generate it. THAT is the only way you can see how the goal post has been moved over time to get the “anomaly” to continue to rise. This post is completely useless without that bit of “data”.

observa
Reply to  Dougmanxx
January 3, 2018 5:02 am

‘and not once do we see: “average global temperature”’
True but then the doomsayers are never prepared to state what their ideal average global temperature should be in order to reach their Green nirvana, let alone how we’re going to measure their ultimate singularity or at what cost. It’s a neat scientific trick not specifying what we should be aiming for but trust them with the money as only they know the way to the Holy Grail.

jim
Reply to  observa
January 3, 2018 7:49 am

Also the global average ( pretty meaningless) temperatures are NOT changing because the maximums are increasing, they are going down slightly. The minimums are slightly increasing ( winter/night). We have a slight trend of ‘mildness’.
This whole thing is a complete load of rubbish, perpetuated by debates like this about meaningless ‘anomalies’ ( whatever that really means)

Reply to  Dougmanxx
January 3, 2018 1:24 pm

The IPCC can’t use temperatures, Doug; average temperatures in the models vary by 3 degrees C. They are not even modeling the same modeled world, much less our real world.

January 3, 2018 4:27 am

Christopher
I would not put too much trust in the sats either.
There is no material that can stand for a long time that what is currently coming from the sun.
Hence, what versions are we on now
???

Take a properly sample of terrestrial stations balanced to zero latitude i.e. not biased on NH, and you will find that it has already started cooling.
comment image

HotScot
January 3, 2018 4:47 am

Whilst I always enjoy Chris Monckton’s presentations, he is squabbling over an academic process that actually has little to do with day to day life.

The important question, in my opinion is, what evidence is there that a warmer planet is a bad planet? None, I suspect, indeed quite the opposite, with the MWP demonstrating considerable human progress.

So far, warming has been coincident with increasing levels of CO2, and as far as I can gather (as a layman) the only observable event manifestation directly attributable to CO2 is that, according to NASA, the planet has greened by 14% in 30 years. I also understand that plants are observably larger and stronger.

Tragically, this academic squabbling is overlooking the bounty available to the planet, instead focussing on wasteful spending on renewable energy sources which may be a source of future regret.

Javier
Reply to  HotScot
January 3, 2018 5:06 am

the MWP demonstrating considerable human progress.

Human progress seems to be higher at periods of colder climate. The Little Ice Age produced the Dutch-English agricultural revolution to adapt to bad crops, and the industrial revolution followed as a consequence. The higher progress in times of climate duress can be tracked back in time to the transition of the Neolithic pre-pottery A to B, at 10,300 years Before Present, as I did in my article:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/

The unification of Egypt under the first dynasty took place shortly after the drying of the Sahara forced a massive migration to the Nile Valley that resulted in the first bronze culture.

Multiple examples of bad climate pushing forward progress, like the spread of agriculture over Europe.

Those that adapt to change are the ones that prevail, and change is biggest under bad climatic conditions.

Duncan Smith
Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 6:08 am

Javier, relating better farm yields and the bronze age to bad climate is a huge stretch. The European farming revolution was better attributed to the import of the Iron plow (vs. wood plow), crop ration and animal husbandry. The iron plow design was imported from the USA. The Sahara dried over 1000’s of years, difficult to pinpoint when this would/could have helped triggered the bronze age.

Using your logic, humans have mastered flight, space travel, mass production, mastered the atom, etc, etc all within a warming period. Warming seems to trump cooling would you not agree?

Javier
Reply to  Duncan Smith
January 3, 2018 6:36 am

Duncan, you need better and more complete information. The Saharan ecology suffered a collapse, accompanied by a human population collapse in just a few centuries.
comment image

Climate is not the only factor in progress, just an important one. But progress is also dependent on the number of people, and specially the number of people dedicated to produce advances. That’s why most advances were produced by the populous civilizations that developed during warm periods.

Societal stress is an engine for change, and climate duress causes societal stress.

HotScot
Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 6:12 am

Javier

I can”t disagree with you, other than to say that, as with during wars when technological progress is made, needs must.

It’s my understanding that most of the Cathedrals across Europe were built during the MWP when crops were easier to grow. People were relieved of the task of grubbing an existence from the soil and were able to find gainful employment, frequently as stonemasons, building said Cathedrals.

Which is also, as I understand it, where the modern Masons originated from, as a body of law abiding men, strategically (but unintentionally) positioned at important places of worship and commerce. It became common for them to help victims of crime as they had the strength and numbers to deal with assailants.

Javier
Reply to  HotScot
January 3, 2018 6:29 am

HotScot, climate is not the only factor in progress obviously, but bad climate creates a strong need that when responded leads to success and rapid spread.

Romans were the great architects and engineers of antiquity. They were substituted in the West by feudal nomadic tribes with a different type of knowledge. Architecture knowledge was lost in the West but preserved by Byzantines.

The Medieval Warm period produced a population expansion and with it an expansion of knowledge. Architectural knowledge was recovered and advanced. However the first cathedrals are from about 1230 when the Medieval Warm Period had past, and right before the start of the LIA around 1250. The peak of cathedral building coincided with the great famines followed by the black death during the XIV century crisis. Within a society in crisis where death was always present and familiar, faith achieved its highest levels. People were more willing to donate to the Church to build cathedrals and be buried in chapels.

HotScot
Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 7:01 am

Javier

I stand corrected. Obliged.

MarkW
Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 7:16 am

Could we say that the resources provided by the MWP provided the means, and the stresses created by the onslaught of the LIA provided the need.
As the LIA continued, the excess resources needed for scientific research dried up and everyone was more concerned about survival than anything else.

Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 8:55 am

Javier,

“The Medieval Warm period produced a population expansion”

That is the one of the reasons why, together with the increased vitality of the European society, the call of pope Urbanus II to organize ‘crusades’ received ample response.
The crusades turned out to be very expensive.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 12:08 pm

The parallel to what you’re bringing up would seem to be the notion that most of the great advances in human endeavor are achieved by those living in cold climates, since shuttered in their dwellings from the unpleasant conditions outside, they have the time to dedicate to the industry of advancing human discovery.

Those living in warm climates, by contrast, are presumably busy lounging at the beach sipping a beverage of choice, too concerned with enjoying the pleasant conditions to concern themselves with such cerebral pursuits.

All kidding aside, warm periods are still a boon to civilization, with the bountiful harvests and population growth, while cold periods are marked by crop failures, famine, disease and death. The ridiculous notion that a warmer climate is a “worse” climate needs to be discarded.

Javier
Reply to  AGW is not Science
January 3, 2018 12:32 pm

Humans are the product of the Ice Age. Homo sapiens was produced during the Riss glacial period. The highest Neanderthal achievements and the appearance of modern humans together with the first complex cultural advances took place in the descent to the last glacial maximum.

Our progress is more linked to cold than warm conditions. But the other main factor that drives progress is the collective mass of human brain and that has been growing exponentially with time and really exploded in the present interglacial.

During warm periods population increases and great civilizations are built that expand human knowledge. However cold periods bring disruption that breeds paradigm shifts and profound societal changes.

Copper, bronze and iron might have been discovered during warm periods, but it was during cold periods when they provided a definite advantage in the ensuing fight for resources. It was at those times when they changed the societies. Steppe horse-riding invasions by Scythians, Huns, and Turkic-Mongols have been associated to climatic deterioration.

So it is the alternation of good and bad periods what pushes progress forward at a higher speed. Of course over a mountain of corpses, as usual in human history.

Duncan Smith
Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 2:26 pm

Javier, I am sure there are various studies. I referenced ‘newer’ studies that contradicts the previous hypothesis of quick decline, suggesting the decline was slower over a millennial time scales. Who’s right? Sure, that could be argued too.

The study contradicts past research that suggested the region dried up within a few hundred years. That research was based on windblown Saharan dust found in Atlantic Ocean sediments.

“This was a hypothesis used by most of the modelers and many of the scientific community who were not working themselves in the Sahara,” Kröpelin said.

“To a large degree we can now show that such an abrupt drying out of the Sahara was a myth,” he said..

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-bountiful-to-barren-sahara-desert/

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080508-green-sahara.html

Javier
Reply to  Duncan Smith
January 3, 2018 6:03 pm

Duncan,

Your newer studies are actually older studies from 2006-2008. And what they show is that lake waters went from fresh to saline abruptly.

This is what Peter de Menocal had to say in 2015:

“by about five thousand years ago, this North African paradise was lost as dry, shifting sands spread across the subcontinent2,4–6. There has been considerable debate about whether this termination occurred gradually as a linear response to orbital changes or whether nonlinear climate feedback processes acted to accelerate this change in climate. Writing in Nature Geoscience, Shanahan and coauthors7 show that both processes occurred, with the end of the African Humid Period occurring progressively later at lower latitudes across North Africa, as expected from orbital climate theory8.

The conclusion from this analysis is clear: the end of the African Humid Period progressed from north to south, and closely matches what would be expected from orbital forcing8. Specifically, the monsoon rains were reduced first in the north, and then progressively later with decreasing latitude.
However, the end of the African Humid Period was locally abrupt at many sites, transitioning from wet to dry conditions much faster than expected from this simple linear theory. Hence some additional, nonlinear mechanism must have been active at these specific sites. Shanahan et al. propose that these locally abrupt transitions were the result of soil moisture and vegetation responses to the gradually retreating monsoon: with diminishing rain, soils rapidly become desiccated and barren, and the loose, sandy soils are subject to rapid wind deflation and transport.
Radiocarbon dating of over 1,000 archaeological sites across North Africa reveals how profoundly the end of the humid phase affected human populations14. These dates, which record human occupation at these sites, indicate that North Africa was rapidly depopulated between 6,300 and 5,200 years ago as dry conditions set in (Fig. 1b). Within centuries, sedentary populations appeared along the Nile, marking the emergence of urban and socially stratified Pharaonic culture and construction of the first pyramids12,14.
Shanahan and co-authors7 show that the end of the African Humid Period occurred gradually with latitude but changes were quite abrupt locally in many places. It is noteworthy that most of the North African population decline occurred in less than a millennium, suggesting that people, like local climate, can respond nonlinearly to climate change.”

https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/site/Papers_files/deMenocal.2015.pdf

The transition from wet to dry is very abrupt once the rain stops. At first dry-resistant vegetation maintains vegetation cover as rain becomes less abundant, but at a certain point vegetation collapses and exposed soil leads to a rapid loss of humidity feedback leaving only desert adapted plants and animals. The rest quickly migrate or perish. As the Sahara shifts from green to dry and back every few millennia it prevents a true adaptation to desert life as it happens in old deserts like the Namibia desert.

John Haddock
Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 5:27 pm

Javier, you say, later:
“However the first cathedrals are from about 1230 when the Medieval Warm Period had past, and right before the start of the LIA around 1250. The peak of cathedral building coincided with the great famines followed by the black death during the XIV century crisis.”

I think you are using too broad a brush. Serious cathedral building began in the middle of the 12C. For example, Paris, Tours, Soissons Strasbourg, Liege, and Chartres were all under construction before the end of the 12C. it’s true that the early part of the 13C saw a lot of cathedral construction but it certainly wasn’t driven by the beginning of the LIA, the start of which is variously dated from 1300 onwards
Agricultural production had improved more or less steadily for centuries prior to 14C. So it wasn’t deprivation, but rather the increase in the standard of living, as well as civic and religious pride, that encouraged cathedral building in the 12C and 13C. Population also grew and that made the subsequent famines of the early 14C worse. But by then, in many places, cathedral construction had been well underway for decades.

Javier
Reply to  John Haddock
January 3, 2018 6:25 pm

I think we are saying essentially the same, John. The increase in population and wealth that took place during the MWP made it possible the advance in knowledge and architecture. The first Romanesque cathedrals were started at the MWP, but the later Gothic cathedrals were built after the MWP. As you say some were started in the late 12C, but long before they were finished the LIA started. The start of the LIA can be placed at the Samalas eruption of 1257. Intense volcanic activity and decreasing solar activity have been shown to have affected temperatures already in the second half of the 13C.

Reply to  Javier
January 8, 2018 6:36 pm

Duncan Smith January 3, 2018 at 6:08 am
Javier, relating better farm yields and the bronze age to bad climate is a huge stretch. The European farming revolution was better attributed to the import of the Iron plow (vs. wood plow), crop ration and animal husbandry. The iron plow design was imported from the USA.

Imported from China by the Dutch then to England where it was developed into the Rotherham plough.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  HotScot
January 3, 2018 12:51 pm

Hotscot:

what evidence is there that a warmer planet is a bad planet?

Top question! I have never seen it answered. I certainly prefer warmth to cold.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 3, 2018 1:30 pm

Read the wild impact speculations in the IPCC AR5, Harry.

Reply to  HotScot
January 4, 2018 5:39 am

The reporting of temperature trends from the main datasets is not “squabbling”: it is the reporting of temperature trends from the main datasets. If the furtively pseudonymous “HotScot” does not like to read articles reporting the temperature trends from the main datasets, he need not read them.

The central question in the climate debate is whether the extravagant predictions of the doomsayers are at all likely to come to pass. The purpose of looking at the actual data is to determine the extent to which those predictions are coming to pass. In fact, the predictions are very considerably exaggerated.

HotScot
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 4, 2018 6:37 am

Monckton of Branchlet

Language Christopher. I’m not furtive thanks.

And as you rightly state, I needn’t read articles In don’t want to, but I do for the sake of my own education. Selfish, perhaps. However, you may have noticed I describe myself as a layman, and to confirm, I have no scientific qualifications.

My observations are justified in the basis of my lack of education and a deal of knowledge of uneducated people I associate with.

Whilst my description of squabbling is undoubtedly not true amongst eminent scientists like yourself, and those that visit this blog, the rest of us struggle with simple concepts. Like, what’s bad about a warmer planet?

Unfortunately, we proletariat are frequently passed over when it comes to actually explaining matters by scientists, so the media take over and do their own very bad job of explaining a complicated subject.

And to be honest, I think it’s the first time on this blog that someone has bothered to insult me, I’m usually met with patient explanation and tolerance.

So apologies for incurring your wrath by pointing out that simple people need simple answers. But perhaps I should be grateful I was even mentioned in despatches.

HotScot
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 4, 2018 6:39 am

Monckton of Brenchley

Stupid predictive text……………My apologies.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 5, 2018 2:23 am

In reply to the furtively pseudonymous “HotScot”, the use of a pseudonym to criticize the work of others is indeed furtive and is, at root, dishonest.

And if “HotScot” wants simple answers, then he is not particularly likely to find them in a more than somewhat technical blog posting in which a minimum of scientific phraseology is inevitable. I don’t PR – I do science. And I do it openly, under my own name, and I have to endure a great deal of malice from true-believers in the New Religion as a result of daring to be honest.

Those who use furtive pseudonyms to snipe safely from the sidelines cannot expect to be treated with kid gloves.

angech
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 5, 2018 2:49 am

“In reply to the furtively pseudonymous “HotScot”, the use of a pseudonym to criticize the work of others is indeed furtive and is, at root, dishonest.”

No.
Like it or lump it this comment is wrong.
Purely sensible for most to use pseudonyms on the internet. Saves a lot of strife from people disaffected by one’s comments and is therefore commonplace and sensible internet tradition.
Agreed that some people use this freedom for furtive and unpleasant behaviour.
That is because they are furtive and unpleasant people.
Everyone else, including Hotscot and myself, are just normal people making normal comments.
I admire your willingness to confront the many dubious arguments of AGW proponents and understand you have been stung by callous and cowardly comments in the past.
Keep going with your good work.
Very appreciated.

Sara
January 3, 2018 5:34 am

So am I seeing what is basically a flat-line temperature model?

Tell me again how I or anyone else is supposed to physically detect a 1/2 degree centigrade or Fahrenheit change in overall temperature.

The only instances in which such minute measurements are important is when the sidewalks and streets are ice-covered and need to be cleared, or when my glass of ice tea starts sweating in the morning, instead of waiting until afternoon.

Right now, it looks like a good day for hot tea and cookies (biscuits to you Brits), so I will employ my oven usefully (on natural gas) and warm the kitchen by making chocolate chip cookies.

richard
January 3, 2018 5:45 am

It doesn’t matter what they do agriculture will always be a good proxy for the climate. Year on year we are getting bumper harvests worldwide due to a benign climate. That is one they cannot alter.

Bruce Cobb
January 3, 2018 6:06 am

Careful, the Warmists might have a tamper tantrum.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 3, 2018 9:39 am

It’s their superpower.

Jeff Wilson
January 3, 2018 6:26 am

Meanwhile global warmists are in denial 😂

co2islife
January 3, 2018 6:37 am

They don’t have to hide anything. The Climate Alarmists will believe anything they are told, even if it contradicts their belief. The following linked article proves that point beyond any doubt. The truth is irrelevant, the politics are what counts.

Most perversely, The Guardian highlights a quote that has been proven 100% false. The Guardian literally published a quote that completely disproves the point they are trying to make. (Emphasis Mine in Following Quote)
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/no-joke-during-record-cold-spell-the-guardian-warns-of-global-warming/

January 3, 2018 6:45 am

Monckton continues to make the same mistake as the establishment scientists in general and ignore the 2003/4 RSS millennial peak and inversion point in his analyses of temperature trends.The climate model forecasts, on which the entire Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming meme rests, and Moncktons analyses also are structured with no regard to the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities that are so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense. It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from, say, February to July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years beyond an inversion point. The models are generally back-tuned for less than 150 years when the relevant time scale is millennial.
To see what is happening see Fig 4 at
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
comment image
“Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003 (14)
Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003….The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.” The future cooling is estimated in Fig 12comment image
“Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. “

John@EF
Reply to  Dr Norman Page
January 3, 2018 7:18 am

Yeah, Include the ENSO events in the trend up to 2005.6 and exclude them after 2005.6 …. where the post-2005.6 trend is even greater … how inconvenient. A real credibility problem.

Reply to  John@EF
January 3, 2018 7:30 am

What I said was ” The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends.”
This is obvious . I did not start the trend at 1998 nor end it at 2016. – just common sense. I said “The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019” This is a testable prediction – we will see.

John@EF
Reply to  John@EF
January 3, 2018 7:35 am

I know what you said, Dr Page.

TRM
Reply to  John@EF
January 3, 2018 8:08 am

While a lot of the math is over my pay grade the predictions are not. I can keep track of what was said when and what really happens. As such the cyclical group is winning and the CO2 group is losing.

Thanks for the prediction Dr Page.

michael hart
Reply to  John@EF
January 3, 2018 8:30 am

“While a lot of the math is over my pay grade the predictions are not. I can keep track of what was said when and what really happens”.

That’s always worth repeating, because the activists, politicians, and MSM who support global warming don’t acknowledge that we all have to use such logic in most aspects of out daily lives. For just one example, we mostly aren’t good enough to follow the complex mathematics of fund managers who look after pension investments, but we certainly know when they don’t produce the returns promised. And we (mostly) won’t accept a string of lame excuses from failing fund managers. There is no reason why climateers should get a free pass on their failed predictions either.

And another thing…failing fund managers don’t routinely insult paying customers to their faces if they question the poor results.

Javier
Reply to  Dr Norman Page
January 3, 2018 8:21 am

The inflection point of 2004 is not even supported by your own data. The millennial solar cycle is predicted to peak around 2100±20. The millennial climate cycle last peaked around 1100 in the Medieval Warm Period. The LIA bottomed around 1600 coinciding with the Maunder Minimum. Akasofu is likely to be correct.

Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 10:57 am

Javier – You say “The millennial solar cycle is predicted to peak around 2100±20.”
1. By whom? On what Evidence? I do note however that you do agree that there is a millennial cycle- unlike Monckton and the climate establishment.
2 The peaks I used were picked from Figs 3 and 4 in the blogpost and paper linked above. In fig 3 the LIA low appears at about 1630comment image

“Fig.3 Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012. (9) (The red line is the 50 year moving average.)
Any discussion or forecast of future cooling must be based on a wide knowledge of the most important reconstructions of past temperatures, after all, the hockey stick was instrumental in selling the CAGW meme to the grant awarders, politicians, NGOs and the general public.
The following papers trace the progressive development of the most relevant reconstructions starting with the hockey stick: Mann et al 1999. Fig. 3 (10), Esper et al 2002 Fig. 3 (11), Mann’s later changes – Mann et al 2008 Fig. 3 (12), and Mann et al 2009 Fig. 1 (13). The later 2012 Christiansen and Ljungqvist temperature time series of Fig. 3 is here proposed as the most useful “type reconstruction” as a basis for climate change discussion. For real world local climate impact estimates, Fig 3 shows that the extremes of variability or the data envelopes are of more significance than averages. Note also that the overall curve is not a simple sine curve. The down trend is about 650 years and the uptrend about 364 years. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting have no necessary connection to reality, particularly if turning points picked from empirical data are ignored………….Easterbrook 2015 (32) based his 2100 forecasts on the warming/cooling, mainly PDO, cycles of the last century. These are similar to Akasofu’s because Easterbrook’s Fig 5 also fails to recognize the 2004 Millennial peak and inversion. Scaffetta’s 2000-2100 projected warming forecast (18) ranged between 0.3 C and 1.6 C which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1C to 4.1 C. The difference between Scaffetta’s paper and the current paper is that his Fig.30 B also ignores the Millennial temperature trend inversion here picked at 2003 and he allows for the possibility of a more significant anthropogenic CO2 warming contribution.

Javier
Reply to  Dr Norman Page
January 3, 2018 12:08 pm

Norman,

The evidence for a millennial cycle is widespread and from two (three?) lines of evidence.

1. Climatic data. Multitude of climate proxies show a clear millennial band.

2. Solar activity data based on ¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be production rates.

The coincidence is clear.
comment image

A millennial (~970 years) band is clear in solar activity reconstructions, more intense in the early and late Holocene than in the middle Holocene (a, c).
A corresponding band is seeing in biological proxies from the Miocene (b), indicating it is a consistent feature for millions of years.

The early Holocene shows the coincidence between the millennial solar cycle and the millennial climatic cycle as seen in North Atlantic Ice rafting debris, Pacific sea surface temperatures, and δ¹⁸O in cave speleothems from China and Oman.
comment image

Notice how it fits a 980-year cycle with climatic lows at X,300 years BP.

This correspondence between solar activity and climate can be extended in the case of Bond events all the way to the LIA.
comment image

Last peak was ~ 1100 AD (850 BP), and last trough was ~ 1600 AD (350 BP). Next peak expected ~ 2100 AD.

3. Planetary theory of Scafetta also predicts ~ 2100.

http://www.landscheidt.info/images/scafetta3.png

Although I do not subscribe his model, it is clearly a possibility, and its P = 983 years also agrees with the evidence. It shows the last peak at ~ 1100 AD and most of the evidence supports that.

Regarding reconstructions, it doesn’t get any better than Wanner et al. 2008 figure, incorporating most reconstructions.
comment image

It supports a Medieval peak at 1000-1100, and a LIA low at 1600.

And 2004 is already 13 years past and we are warmer, not cooler. Even if there is some cooling in the near future, the present solar extended minimum that should last until around ~ 2035 can explain it without a need for a millennial peak at 2004.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
January 3, 2018 2:38 pm

GISP2 contradicts your millennial cycle.

Javier
Reply to  Yogi Bear
January 3, 2018 3:17 pm

GISP2 doesn’t contradict anything. It just shows what happened in Central Greenland.

The Bond series is very clear about the millennial cycle. It is even shown in one of the figures of the Bond paper. So it is not “my” millennial cycle.

The ¹⁴C data is very clear about the millennial periodicity. So it is not “my” millennial cycle.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
January 4, 2018 1:18 pm

GISP2 fully contradicts everyone’s millennial cycle. Cold around 8200 and 7200 BP, but the complete opposite and warm at around 5200, 4200, and 3200 BP. You can’t honestly claim that central Greenland temperature changes are unconnected with global temperature changes.

Javier
Reply to  Yogi Bear
January 4, 2018 5:36 pm

You can’t honestly claim that central Greenland temperature changes respond to solar forcing the same way that Northern Europe does. Read Kobashi’s articles on Greenland paleo temperatures.

GISP2 doesn’t contradict anything. Greenland is not the place to look for the response to solar forcing.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
January 5, 2018 3:08 am

“You can’t honestly claim that central Greenland temperature changes respond to solar forcing the same way that Northern Europe does.”

I was not claiming any such thing, nor would I.

“GISP2 doesn’t contradict anything.”

Yes it does.

“Greenland is not the place to look for the response to solar forcing.”

You have used it.

Javier
Reply to  Yogi Bear
January 5, 2018 3:25 am

GISP2 is a Central Greenland record of atmospheric conditions. You cannot say the millennial cycle is not real because it doesn’t show in GISP2. It certainly shows in North Atlantic iceberg proxies. It certainly shows in sea surface temperatures in many places.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
January 5, 2018 6:18 am

A millennial cycle is fully contradicted by GISP2, period. To say that I cannot say that is ridiculous at the extreme.

Javier
Reply to  Yogi Bear
January 5, 2018 6:34 am

Nope. All GISP2 can say is that the millennial cycle did not leave a clear mark in that Central Greenland proxy. Period. It cannot say if the cycle is real or not. And if it cannot say it, it cannot contradict it.

You mistake absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Science 101.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
January 5, 2018 8:37 am

“All GISP2 can say is that the millennial cycle did not leave a clear mark in that Central Greenland proxy.”

That is just what you are saying, and it’s baseless drivel. There is no way that two ‘millennial’ maximums could be very cold on GISP while three others are the complete reverse and peak warm periods.

Javier
Reply to  Yogi Bear
January 5, 2018 9:31 am

There is no way that two ‘millennial’ maximums could be very cold on GISP while three others are the complete reverse and peak warm periods.

So you say. You appear to know what is possible and what is not in past climate. Yet I trust more the evidence presented in multiple works over multiple proxies from multiple places that support the existence of a millennial periodicity in Holocene climate. Perhaps you ought to read more instead of fixating on GISP2. Why don’t you start with:
Khider, D., Jackson, C. S., & Stott, L. D. (2014). Assessing millennial‐scale variability during the Holocene: A perspective from the western tropical Pacific. Paleoceanography, 29 (3), 143-159.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013PA002534/full

“Spectral analysis (Figure 5) indicates there is enhanced variability at millennial timescales, with periodicities of ~1100 years, ~1400 years and ~2700 years in SST and ~1100 years, ~1300 years, and ~2400 years in δ18Osw. This millennial-scale variability is robust despite age, analytical, and calibration uncertainties (Figures 5a and 5b). The last oscillation corresponds to the Northern Hemisphere Medieval Warm Period/Little Ice Age, which has been previously documented in this region [Newton et al., 2006, 2011; Oppo et al., 2009]. Wavelet analysis of the SST record shows that although the 2500 year (and to some extent the 1500 year) periodicity is present throughout the Holocene, the 1000 year periodicity is strongest in the early (8000–10,000 years B.P.) and late (0–3000 years B.P.) Holocene (Figure 6).”

There you have data from the Tropical Pacific on the millennial cycle and a perfectly good explanation for why its behavior is not consistent through the entire Holocene.

GISP2 shows what it shows, and that doesn’t say anything about what it doesn’t show.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
January 5, 2018 12:31 pm

“a perfectly good explanation for why its behavior is not consistent”

I don’t see a good explanation for the inconsistency there, if anything it’s a good example of why you cannot predict on the basis of a 1000 year cycle. Their SST signal is 1100 years, with a response time of SST to solar forcing of ~400 years.

Javier
Reply to  Yogi Bear
January 5, 2018 1:30 pm

Again, no. The intensity of the climatic effect of the millennial cycle found by the authors in SST proxies matches the power of the ¹⁴C production millennial periodicity. Both are found to be strong in the early and late Holocene. It confirms the correlation between the millennial climatic cycle and the millennial solar cycle.

Regarding predictions over a millennial cycle. Who cares? The next low is due in 600 years. Such long term predictions have no value whatsoever. I could also say that I expect the interglacial to end in 2000 years. Anything beyond a human life-span (75 years) is essentially irrelevant. The important thing is to recognize the very significant effect that solar variability has on climate change. A stronger solar case makes for a weaker CO₂ case.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
January 5, 2018 2:14 pm

“Who cares? The next low is due in 600 years. Such long term predictions have no value whatsoever. I could also say that I expect the interglacial to end in 2000 years. Anything beyond a human life-span (75 years) is essentially irrelevant. The important thing is to recognize the very significant effect that solar variability has on climate change.”

The point is that such predictions are baseless, as you don’t know how the claimed cycle comes and goes. For all you know the next low could be through the next few hundred years. I would have thought most people would care about the fate of their descendants, of course an effective prediction for the next major solar minimum has huge value.

Javier
Reply to  Yogi Bear
January 6, 2018 2:26 am

Such predictions are as baseless as the next solar cycle. Sunspots were known to occur, but in the mid-17C Cassini at the Observatorie de Paris could not observe any for decades. So the fact that the cycle is absent for decades means nothing. The next millennial low could come or not, or be stronger or weaker, but what is not going to happen is that it comes within the next few hundred years.

A prediction for a next major solar minimum several centuries away has absolutely no value. If we expect science to continue advancing in 100 years mankind will know about this things a lot more than it does now. They might know what is its cause and be able to predict its minima with a lot more precision. They also should have more means to face the climatic consequences of a grand solar minimum, or even the end of the interglacial, so what’s the point of worrying now?

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
January 6, 2018 4:09 am

That’s not the point, a grand solar minimum could begin in 80 years time.

Javier
Reply to  Yogi Bear
January 6, 2018 4:21 am

That’s always a possibility, but the chances are extremely small as only 3 grand solar minima have taken place in the last 12,000 years outside the lows of the 1000 and 2500-year cycles.

We could also get a class 7 VEI tropical volcanic eruption any time. The chances are also small, but it will eventually happen. Life is uncertain.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
January 6, 2018 4:35 am

I am still satisfied that GISP2 contradicts a millennial cycle.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
January 7, 2018 11:05 am

Maybe there are ~1000 year nodes in a longer cycle, that get reset every 3500 or 4500 years, that could account for what I am seeing in the GISP series.

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
January 3, 2018 8:36 am

The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4

The slope from 2003.6 to 2015.3 is no longer negative with the RSS4 version that WFT now uses.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2003.6/to:2015.3/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/to:2015.3

TonyL
Reply to  Dr Norman Page
January 3, 2018 9:47 am

The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019

I have been following the arguments of the “cyclic climate change” proponents from the very start of WUWT.
The “Coming Cooling Trend” is now, and always has been, ~2 years in the future. The cooling trend does not seem to be getting any closer. According to Fig. 12, the high point was ~2007, and a cooling trend in the following decade is quite pronounced. So far, in the real world, nothing.
Here is my take on it. Norman Page data plotted along with UAH TLT.comment image
{click to embiggen}
Prior to 2007, the Page data tracks UAH quite well. After that, they are going in quite opposite directions. The difference is really quite dramatic.

MarkW
Reply to  TonyL
January 3, 2018 10:37 am

The cooling is predicted to start when both the AMO and PDO are in their cool phases, we are still waiting for that to occur.

Richard M
Reply to  TonyL
January 3, 2018 12:03 pm

In my opinion the problem with Dr. Page’s analysis is he hasn’t properly accounted for the AMO. What happened when the PDO went negative is the warming stopped. However, there was no cooling due to the +AMO.

Since the AMO is likely to remain positive for another 5-7 years we probably won’t see any real cooling until that time. This appears to be similar to the last cycle when the AMO went negative in the 1960s and that was when the cooling started which led to the claims of a coming ice age in the 1970s.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  TonyL
January 3, 2018 2:41 pm

So the AMO shifted cold 1965, just add 69 years to that for when it next shifts cold.

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
January 4, 2018 5:43 am

Dr Page, as usual, disrupts this thread with a promotional blurb for his own blog. It is, however, self-evident from the graphs in the head posting that the recent el Nino raised temperatures above where they were in 2003, which is not, therefore, “the most recent peak in the millennial cycle”.

In general, I am suspicious of assertions that “cycles” exist in quasi-periodic or even outright stochastic data, when no definitively-established mechanism for inducing any such cyclicity has been advanced.

JBP
January 3, 2018 7:30 am

“However, that tamperature change was not enough. The RSS dataset……..”

‘Tamperature’. Love it. It fits.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  JBP
January 3, 2018 11:12 am

No pun intended?? ;-D

Caligula Jones
Reply to  AGW is not Science
January 3, 2018 1:12 pm

I sense a new skeptic buzzword!

John@EF
January 3, 2018 7:33 am

“Finally, in due course I shall show exactly what error in the models has led to the extravagant over-predictions, and just how small the properly-predicted warming rate will be once that fatal error is corrected.”

Can’t wait – an injection of humor is always good.

RWturner
Reply to  John@EF
January 3, 2018 8:28 am

Can you guess the fatal error? My guess is that they are using too high of a CO2 climate sensitivity.

Berényi Péter
January 3, 2018 7:41 am

In the past 20 years, since December, 1997, even with the huge El Nino spike in February, 2016, global lower troposphere warming trend in UAH 6.0 is 0.07°C/decade.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Which is insignificant.

Berényi Péter
Reply to  Berényi Péter
January 3, 2018 8:11 am

The same figure for RSS 4.0 is 0.14°C/decade, which is still insignificant.

http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt

nc
January 3, 2018 7:50 am

Christopher and most of you are all wrong. Here is todays blog from Canada’s CBC and taxpayer funded PR machine for the Liberal left Canadian government, the cold is the result of “global warming”,” climate change”, whatever. The much exulted CBC said so, so it must be true. You see the Trudeau Liberal government is bringing in a carbon tax so have been recently using the CBC to increase the warming hype. That tax is needed to feed its expanding bureaucracy

.http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/extreme-cold-1.4471078?cmp=rss

Also the province of BC is increasing its carbon tax, so hey governments when they tax are not to be questioned, they know best.

Hope I don’t need a sarc tag.

nc
Reply to  nc
January 3, 2018 7:55 am

Here is the take-away from my post

“A few cold days doesn’t disprove climate change,” Furtado said. “That’s just silly. Just like a couple down days on the stock market doesn’t mean the economy is going into the trash.”

MarkW
Reply to  nc
January 3, 2018 8:21 am

A totally true statement, however I would take them a lot more seriously if they didn’t claim that every heat wave is proof of global warming.

Reply to  nc
January 3, 2018 1:48 pm

Canadian carbon taxes will add to the growing U.S. Trump economy. Thanks!

JimG1
January 3, 2018 8:01 am

I get a kick out of all this climate/weather forecasting. I watch the 15 day and extended forecasts and they can’t even get these right for just a week or two in advance and we have all these folks predicting what’s going to happen years from now! But it’s fun to watch. There are so many potential causal variables which are in many cases are so intercorrelated that the result is mega multicolinearity and a pretty chaotic system which, so far, defies predictability. It has been getting warmer for thousands of years, that’s why the glaciers have receded and when that trend changes much of the populated world will need to proceed to the center of the floor, sit down, place their head between their knees and kiss their ass goodbye.

Berényi Péter
Reply to  JimG1
January 3, 2018 8:22 am

However, in spite of this all, annual absorbed incoming solar energy is measured to be practically the same for the two hemispheres. Which property is not replicated by computational climate models. Alas, they are not particularly good at regional predictions, not even for the widest possible regions, only their global predictions are flawless.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00132.1

MarkW
Reply to  JimG1
January 3, 2018 8:28 am

Short term weather forecasts are completely different beasts from long term climate forecasts.
Being good at one does not prove the other. Being bad at one does not disprove each other.

The first only cares about current conditions.
The second couldn’t care less about current conditions but requires an in depth knowledge of how the various components of the world interact with each other to create climate.

The first fails because we don’t have perfect real time weather data to feed into the models. Secondly, because computers aren’t infinitely powerful we have to divide the atmosphere into blocks and average what goes on inside those blocks. This averaging destroys many of the details needed to keep the models accurate over time.

The second fails because we don’t fully understand how all of the components interact.
We don’t know how changes in water temperature influence changes in cloud formation.
We don’t know how changes in cloud formation influence water temperature.
For just one example.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  JimG1
January 3, 2018 11:19 am

Actually, it’s been getting cooler for thousands of years. Pick your period, pick your “trend.”

JimG1
Reply to  AGW is not Science
January 3, 2018 2:07 pm

Agree. I was referring to since the last glaciation.

RWturner
January 3, 2018 8:39 am

Climate cult thermodynamics is interesting. The literal mechanism for climate doom is supposed to be an additional 1:10,000 molecules that become quantumly energized up to perhaps 1 ev and then that quantum energy becomes translational kinetic energy when colliding with other molecules. How this heat signature isn’t evenly spread throughout the atmosphere and record low temperatures continue to be set can only be explained with climastrology.

Reply to  RWturner
January 3, 2018 1:51 pm

Again, CO2 forcing is about 1% of total atmospheric forcings. Trivial.

Reply to  RWturner
January 3, 2018 3:18 pm

Kirchhoff: “There are no thermal diodes.” Therefore if energy can be passed by collisions one way, it can be passed the other as well. Which raises the somewhat awkward point for the alarmists that CO2 would in that case provide a mechanism for cooling the upper atmosphere. Possibly a more effective one than for warming the lower atmosphere? Who knows.

HotScot
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
January 4, 2018 11:35 am

Ian,

Brilliant, thank you. An abiding, and very clumsy question of mine has always been, how does atmospheric CO2 know what direction to chuck its energy in. A choice of 360 degrees and it seems the only direction is towards the planet.

JohnWho
January 3, 2018 9:20 am

Just wondering, but …

“The late Bob Carter, shortly before his untimely death, wrote to me to say how pleased he was that we had added the line pointing out that one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since 1750 had arisen during the Pause, but without causing any global warming at all.”

Is it really “one-third of Man’s entire influence” or “one-third of the time period in which man may be influencing” climate?

I guess what I’m wondering is whether there is evidence that man is actually having a discernable influence on the climate or is it just theoretical?

Note I didn’t say “local weather”, I said climate.

TonyL
Reply to  JohnWho
January 3, 2018 9:59 am

one-third of Man’s entire influence

The unstated part is: In keeping with CAGW alarmism, all of Man’s influence is the production of CO2, and nothing else, and there are no other causes.
It has been widely noted that 1/3 of all CO2 production since the start of the Industrial Revolution has happened since the start of The Pause.

Toneb
Reply to  TonyL
January 3, 2018 11:02 am

“It has been widely noted that 1/3 of all CO2 production since the start of the Industrial Revolution has happened since the start of The Pause.”

That’s alright then – as 1/3 or more of the warming has occurred since the start of the “pause” (1998).
Or around 0.4C.
comment image

A C Osborn
Reply to  TonyL
January 3, 2018 12:08 pm

Toneb, please also quote how much of the current warming is due to the Adjustments made to the data.
We have it on record here, so make sure that you quote the correct value.

Toneb
Reply to  TonyL
January 3, 2018 3:25 pm

Toneb, please also quote how much of the current warming is due to the Adjustments made to the data.”

Yes, OK – but how about you do with the JMA data.
And the Hadcrut data.
Also how much is UAH (not forgetting V6.0 of course) cooling the data?

And as Nick often says the un-adjusted data is still there, available.
Use it…..

It actually REDUCES the warming trend …..

http://www.realclimate.org/images//GISS-adjustments.jpg

Toneb
Reply to  TonyL
January 3, 2018 3:32 pm

And UAH (not forgetting V6.0) has it warming 0.4C from the cool-down after the ’98 EN to this last month.
But no “tampering” there of course.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2017_v6.jpg

Reply to  Toneb
January 3, 2018 5:05 pm

Graph squiggle watching seems to have replaced phrenology, Toneb.

But: Nothing in the satellites 1979 – 1998, and nothing 2001 – 2015. Not consistent with CO2 forcing theory.

Reply to  TonyL
January 3, 2018 3:35 pm

Another related statistic is that in spite of the massive increase in renewable energy deployment in the last two or three decades, the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase has remained constant. This blows away any suggestions that renewables gave rise to the pause, or that they are likely to be effective in solving climate change.

In fact it seems to indicate that they have no influence AT ALL on CO2 levels. If they did, you would expect to see some signature in the data even if it were offset by fossil fuel usage increases.
comment image

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/images/energy-economics/svg/installed-wind-generation-capacity-bp.svg

Toneb
Reply to  TonyL
January 3, 2018 4:18 pm

“This blows away any suggestions that renewables gave rise to the pause, or that they are likely to be effective in solving climate change.”

I must say, that’s a new one on me.

And I wouldn’t expect it anyway, how can renewables in their infancy even make a scratch on world-wide consumption of Fossil?
With China expanding rapidly to boot.
Would take many decades.

A C Osborn
Reply to  TonyL
January 5, 2018 1:19 pm

Well come on Quote It, you are avoiding saying how much it is.
Come on don’t be shy, you know you can do it.

Duster
Reply to  JohnWho
January 3, 2018 7:03 pm

The human influence on “global climate” is debatable. At regional and local levels the influence of human effects is undeniable. These range from Urban Heat Island effects through wider spanning changes that are the result of agricultural modifications to the landscape to increases in albedo through contrails and ships exhaust plumes. The contraill effect was observed IIRC during the ground stop following 9/11 when increased daily temperature ranges were observed over the continental US. Logically, these kinds of effects should contribute in some fashion to “global climate”. The devil however lies in the details and those have never been really worked out. I am convinced the CO2 Crew like it mainly because the assumptions are effects are relatively simple. That their models ignore so much more is through fright at the sheer work involved. That and politicians “pay” you for simple cures that make them look like they are actually doing a job.

angech
Reply to  Duster
January 3, 2018 10:52 pm

NOAA NCDC provided an updated file on 9 September 2009 of the GHCN data used in our analysis. The new file has increased data quality checks in the tropics. Beginning 11 September the GISS analysis uses the new NOAA data set.

All 3 data sets Ton B match because they all use the same data. They are basically all one continually modifed data set


April 12, 2010: Reports have been coming in from Nitchequon, a ghost town in Quebec, after a long gap from 1986-2006; however those data don’t seem to be consistent with the older records. Hence they are disregarded until further notice.

It seems that USHCN is being replaced by an updated and renamed version every month.

Blame Zeke.
This is what tampering is.

Toneb
January 3, 2018 9:27 am

Here we have the trends of several Tropospheric temp series (not surface) ….. which of course is not comparing apples with apples anyway.

http://postmyimage.com/img2/995_Tropospheretrends.png

Now from a scientific standpoint it is curious that UAH (not forgetting the all important V6.0!) is preffered – it has the smallest trend, and therefor by definition an outlier.

It is also interesting that analysis/re-analasis data is the highest. Real world data, or at least as close as we are ever going to get.

It is also interesting to note that contrary to Monckton’s baseless accusations….
“In my report of the Pause in November 2017 at WattsUpWithThat, I predicted that the RSS dataset would swiftly be tampered”

So you knew of the following did you??

From: http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated/

“The update was primarily motivated by the large relative trends between different AMSU satellites in our previous version. These differences were large enough to cause problems in the final dataset. For the AMSU satellites, the most important adjustment we perform is the adjustment for drifts in local measurement time. Over the mission of most satellites, this time drifts by several hours, and the time of day measured by the satellite might change, for example, from 2:00PM and 2:00AM to 8:00PM and 8:00AM – a 6 hour change.
If uncorrected, this measurement time difference can obviously lead to large temperature differences between the satellites. …..”
“We are not the only people who noted this problem in our data. Even Roy Spencer commented on it back in 2011:”

(from drroyspencer.com,)
“my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.”

RSS
“We agree that there is a problem with either NOAA-14 or NOAA-15, or both. We explicitly discuss the problem with the NOAA-14/NOAA-15 overlap in the paper. We do not know if the problem is due to NOAA-14 or NOAA-15. If we assume that all the drift is due to NOAA-14, as Dr. Spencer would like us to do, we can eliminate the use of NOAA-14 after 1999 …..
There is no evidence that NOAA-14 drifts for time periods before 1998, because it agrees well with measurements made by other MSU satellites (NOAA-11 and NOAA-12) over the ocean, where the diurnal adjustment is not important. The drift would have to suddenly appear in 1998.

So we cannot assume that the problem is with NOAA-14. We instead explore
the 3 cases:

1. we assume NOAA-14 is wrong and remove it to the extent possible* This leads to a decrease of 0.019K/decade
2. we assume NOAA-15 is wrong, and remove it to the extent possible. This leads to an increase of 0.010 K/decade
3. we assume that the error is shared between them, and we keep all the data.

These results are reported in the paper, and the differences between them should be viewed as part of the uncertainty in the final results. For the final dataset, we used case 3 where the errors are shared between NOAA-14 and NOAA-15, which is reasonable because we do not know the source of the problem.

This is the “problem”….

http://postmyimage.com/img2/792_UAHRatpacvalidation2.png

UAH is running cold relative to radiosonde data since the swap from NOAA14 to 15 in ’98.

NCEP/NCAR reanalysis is running at 0.26 C/dec well withing the IPCC FAR projection of 0.2 to 0.5 uncertainty range …

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

One last point.
It was of course perfectly reasonable to “tamper” with UAH to reduce it’s trend from that of v5.6 to v6.0 (on the above graph from 0.126 to 0.03 C/dec).
Well, silly question ay Monckton.

John@EF
Reply to  Toneb
January 3, 2018 9:52 am

Zactly. Before Spencer introduced 6.0 he declared RSS was significantly too cool & needed upward adjustment, and UAH 5.6 was a little to warm … he then promptly offered 6.0 which basically tracked the RSS data he badmouthed.

Reply to  Toneb
January 3, 2018 11:01 am

Toneb January 3, 2018 at 9:27 am

It is also interesting to note that contrary to Monckton’s baseless accusations….
“In my report of the Pause in November 2017 at WattsUpWithThat, I predicted that the RSS dataset would swiftly be tampered”

So you knew of the following did you??

From: http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated/

Very prophetic of Monckton, the first paper discussing version 4 was submitted in October 2015, two years before his ‘prediction’! I’ve noted on here that he has had issues with recalling dates, perhaps he did so here two.

John@EF
Reply to  Phil.
January 3, 2018 11:37 am

Phil, as you know, Monckton has no problem recalling. When a setting allows for direct confrontation regarding disinformation he advances he’ll immediately retreat to a more dependable position – I’ve personally witnessed this multiple times. His tactics are intentional and continual … and have been for a very long time.

Toneb
Reply to  Phil.
January 3, 2018 12:07 pm

“I’ve personally witnessed this multiple times. His tactics are intentional and continual … and have been for a very long time.”

Yep, there are some very good YT vids of him doing exactly that.
I don’t believe they are popular here, but the guy who did them is 63 and goes into caves as a hobby.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Phil.
January 3, 2018 12:44 pm

ToneB:

…but the guy who did them is 63

WTF has such a young age got to do with it?

Toneb
Reply to  Phil.
January 3, 2018 2:52 pm

“WTF has such a young age got to do with it?”

Seems you haven’t got my drift …..
Err, I did say “he’s not popular here”.
So that is a clue to his YT avatar.
If 63 (as I am) was born in ’54.
And someone how goes down caves as a hobby is called a “Potholer”.
Get it now??????

John@EF
Reply to  Phil.
January 3, 2018 3:20 pm

“Yep, there are some very good YT vids of him doing exactly that.
I don’t believe they are popular here, but the guy who did them is 63 and goes into caves as a hobby.”

Hahaaa … and with extraordinary irony has the same hobby as David Rose.

Reply to  Phil.
January 4, 2018 5:49 am

The ever-inaccurate “Phil.” says my prediction that RSS would soon tamper with its dataset to airbrush away the Pause was made in November 2017. No: the Pause ended in 2015, which is when I made my prediction – a few weeks before RSS announced the new version of its data.

Reply to  Phil.
January 4, 2018 6:52 am

Monckton of Brenchley January 4, 2018 at 5:49 am
The ever-inaccurate “Phil.” says my prediction that RSS would soon tamper with its dataset to airbrush away the Pause was made in November 2017. No: the Pause ended in 2015, which is when I made my prediction – a few weeks before RSS announced the new version of its data.

Ever-inaccurate? I was quoting your post:
“In my report of the Pause in November 2017 at WattsUpWithThat, I predicted that the RSS dataset would swiftly be tampered”

I guess that’s not a reliable source?

The earliest reference by you making such an assertion that I can see on WUWT is:
“I am not the only one to sense that Dr Mears, the keeper of the RSS satellite dataset, who labels all who ask questions about the Party Line as “denialists” and in early 2016 took shameful part in a gravely prejudiced video about global temperature change, may be about to revise his dataset sharply to ensure that the remarkable absence of predicted warming that it demonstrates is sent down the memory hole.”
This was dated February 6, 2016 several months after the RSS paper was submitted 23 Oct 2015.