STATE OF THE CLIMATE REPORT REVEALS 23-YEAR TEMPERATURE PAUSE IN THE STRATOSPHERE
London 27 March 2018: A new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) counters media hype over recent warm global temperatures, showing that almost all of the sudden increase in temperatures in the last couple of years was caused by a record strong natural El Nino phenomenon rather than global warming.
The report’s author, Emeritus Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Oslo, also reveals that the atmosphere is still not behaving the way most climatologists say it should.
According to Professor Humlum, “It is clear that temperatures in the troposphere are continuing to diverge from surface temperatures. In other words, they are warming more slowly than global warming theory says they should. The contrast with theory is even more marked in the stratosphere, where temperatures have barely changed for 23 years. We still have much to learn about the climate.”
The GWPF’s State of the Climate 2017 report is a comprehensive review of the global climate, covering land and ocean temperatures, sea ice, sea levels, snow cover and tropical storms.
Among the key findings of the survey are:
- At the end of 2017 the average global surface temperature was dropping back toward levels before the record 2015-16 El Niño episode. This return to pre-El Niño levels underscores that the recent peak in global temperature was caused mainly by this oceanographic phenomenon in the Pacific.
- Since 2003 the average global temperature estimate based on surface weather stations has steadily diverged in the warm direction from satellite-based estimates without a convincing explanation.
- Data from tide-gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1-1.5 mm/year, while the satellite-derived estimates suggest a rise of more than twice the rate of about 3.2 mm/year. The noticeable difference between the two data sets still has no broadly accepted explanation.
Full report — The State of the Climate 2017 (PDF)
Sorry to be a pedant, but I think it’s worth emphasizing that it is not a pause until the warming resumes. Unless and until the warming resumes, it just isn’t warming.
Dr Page
don’t put too much trust in RSS and UAH either
The past few years the sun was at its worst in terms of spewing more of the most energetic particles [due to the lower solar polar magnetic field strengths] which of course affects anything [that measures something] in space.
Roger
You make things far too difficult.
There is no man made global warming. Just figured this out from looking in my own backyard….
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
It is already globally cooling….
There may or there may not be some global warming, but in any case this is not a proper metric of some enhanced greenhouse effect (if any).
Were increased GHG to have any effect, it would best show in reduced heat loss rate at night, in clear sky deserts (to get rid of water effect), compared to previous decades. For some reason, no data show any such effect. Pretty sure it wasn’t even looked for.
Clearly, that is not happening, as is evident from my results. [a reduction in minimum temperatures]
I disagree with your statement here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/27/new-report-reveals-a-23-year-long-pause-in-stratospheric-temperature/#comment-2776446
I don’t think there really are any accurate reports or papers on how much the influence is from earth’s inner core / volcanism…
Are there?
The fact is that my data sets are showing that there has been no warming in the SH over the past 40 years. All warming was in the NH. Increase in CO2 certainly does not explain my results. That takes away the G out of AGW.
Come down with me 1 km down into a goldmine here. You will notice the sweat on your face and body and begin to wonder how big the elephant in the room really is. Now google how much more the magnetic north pole has been moving north east in the past 100 years compared to the century before….
Perhaps one type of SC that has a magnetic stirrer effect?
That makes more sense to me [i.e. at least to explain my own results]
just to clarify
‘that’ in my first sentence = global warming due to more CO2
USCRN SUR_TEMP and SURFRAD uw_ir are surface upwelling infrared measurements from instruments that appear configured to apply ideal S-B BB equations, emissivity of about 1.0.
Consequently, in some cases the upwelling power flux readings produced from these instruments can be as much as twice the amount of the measured downwelling solar irradiation power flux delivered to the surface. Energy from thin air by a misapplied equation is a rather clear violation of thermodynamic conservation of energy.
An ideal S-B BB configuration works fine at the surface of the sun or earth’s ToA radiating out into the non-participating vacuum of space.
But at the surface of the earth, submerged under 32 km of molecules participating through the thermal processes of conduction, convection, advection and latent, is an entirely different scenario.
Applying an emissivity correction of 0.16 appears to bring these surface upwelling measurements into reasonable balance with the solar, convective and latent surface down and up welling power fluxes.
‘twould be more than a little bit disconcerting to discover that RGHE/GHG loop/CAGW are all based on a handful of improperly configured IR instruments.
For my own sanity and sense of realistic proportions, regarding the above argued AbsorptionsRe-emissions of all wavelengths of photos (with atmospheric Windows™), it is only a tiny fraction of all photons passing through the atmosphere involved in the minor absorptionsre-emissions process.
If it were not an incredibly minor process, the satellites could not make clear high-res optical wavelength images of the Earth’s surface, because no photons would pass directly from surface to sensor, and nor could ground-based telescopes with adaptive-optics make clear crisp images of the planets.
So the overall photon AbsortiondRe-emissions process is very tiny, else the images would be all washed out.
Because the total CO2 photon AbsorptionsRe-emissions is freakin tiny. Almost but not quite nothing.
In fact, H2O is the faaaar bigger photon AbsorberRe-emitter.
So, were talking about photon to molecule swapping that’s so minor as to be almost inconsequential.
Unless it’s >cloudy< … no satellite or telescope images then!
The images really are all washed-out with clouds.
But that is H2O, not CO2, that's doing that. CO2 can do nothing similar.
And clouds net-cool the surfsce over time, via direct H2O albedo net photon escapes to space.
Which shows clouds are easily the far more significant photon Absorber re-emitter atmospheric process on Earth.
I like clouds.
Clouds don’t bullsh!t me.