A new Pause?

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

At long last, following the warming effect of the El Niño of 2016, there are signs of a reasonably significant La Niña, which may well usher in another Pause in global temperature, which may even prove similar to the Great Pause that endured for 224 months from January 1997 to August 2015, during which a third of our entire industrial-era influence on global temperature drove a zero trend in global warming:

As we come close to entering the la Niña, the trend in global mean surface temperature has already been zero for 5 years 4 months:

However, the new Pause is at a surface-temperature plateau 0.3 C° above the old Pause:

That is equivalent to a not particularly terrifying centennial warming rate of 1.25 C° over the 19 years covering the two pauses and the warming in between.

Since the projected net anthropogenic radiative forcing over the 21st century is approximately equivalent to the 3.5 W m–2 forcing from doubled CO2, the indications are that equilibrium sensitivity to a CO2 doubling, known as equilibrium CO2 sensitivity (ECS) or Charney sensitivity, is a great deal smaller than the 3 C° originally estimated by Charney in 1979 and the 4 C° projected by models. Let us test that proposition not with models but with data.

It is possible to derive ECS directly from observational data, with the help of the following handy equation. The anthropogenic equilibrium sensitivity ΔEt over a given period from time t to time t +1 is the product of the anthropogenic fraction M of observed period global mean surface warming ΔTt and the ratio of the period anthropogenic forcing ΔQt to the difference between ΔQt and the period anthropogenic fraction M of the Earth’s observed energy imbalance ΔNt.

From 1850-1980, net anthropogenic forcing ΔQ1 was 1.25 W m–2 (IPCC 2013, fig. SPM.5). The Planck sensitivity parameter for 1850 was about 0.3 C° W–1 m2. Their product was the 0.37 C° period anthropogenic reference sensitivity ΔR1 (i.e., the direct warming before adding feedback response). By coincidence, ΔR1 was equal to the observed period warming trend ΔT1 (HadCRUT4). Wu et al. (2019) give the anthropogenic fraction M of observed global warming as 0.7. Using the equation, period equilibrium sensitivity ΔE1 was 0.39 C°. The system-gain factor A1 = ΔE1 / ΔR1, which allows for feedback response, was just 1.005.

From 1980-2020, net anthropogenic forcing ΔQ2 was 1.65 W m–2 (NOAA AGGI index, 2020, adjusted for ozone, aerosols and black carbon). The product of that value and the Planck sensitivity parameter was the 0.49 C° period anthropogenic reference sensitivity ΔR2. The observed period warming trend ΔT2 (HadCRUT5) was 0.7 C°. For M = 0.7, the equation gives period equilibrium sensitivity ΔE2 as 0.54 C°. The system-gain factor A2 = ΔE2 / ΔR2 was 1.1.

Given the 3.5 W m–2 radiative forcing ΔQ3 equivalent to a doubling of CO2 concentration (Zelinka et al. 2020) compared with that year, the reference sensitivity ΔR3 to doubled CO2 is 1.05 C°. Finally, to allow for nonlinear growth in feedback response with temperature, we need to know the approximate rate at which the system-gain factor increases over time. That is why we studied the two recent periods which, taken together, constitute the climatological industrial era. From 1850-1980 the system-gain factor was 1.05; from 1980-2020 it was 1.1. Therefore, a respectable approximation for the period following 2020 is 1.15.

Accordingly, midrange ECS – currently imagined to be 3.7 C° (Meehl et al. 2020) or even 3.9 C° (Zelinka et al. 2020), is actually 1.05 x 1.15, or 1.2 C°, very much in coherence with the 1.25 C° centennial-equivalent warming rate of the past 19 years.

Why, then, is the world panicking about global warming? The reason is that climatologists imagined that the 32 C° natural greenhouse effect, the difference between the 255 K emission temperature that would obtain in the absence of greenhouse gases and the 287 K surface temperature in 1850, comprised 24 C° preindustrial feedback response entirely attributable to the 8 C° reference sensitivity forced by the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases.

They had not appreciated that most of the 24 C° preindustrial feedback response was not driven by the 8 C° preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases but by a quantity 30 times larger: namely, emission temperature itself. The feedback response to those gases was thus minuscule: probably less than 1 C° of the 24 C°. Sure enough, the feedback responses from 1850-1980, from 1980-2020 and from 2020 to doubled CO2 work out at just 0.02 C°, 0.05 C° and 0.16 C° respectively. End of climate “emergency”.

It will be interesting to see how long the current Pause will endure. At the moment, we are not quite in formal La Niña conditions. In the table below, warm periods (shown in red) and cold periods (blue) are based on a threshold of ±0.5 C° in the Oceanic Niño Index, which is the three-month running mean of the ERSST v. 5 sea-surface temperatures in the Niño 3.4 region of the equatorial eastern Pacific from 5° North to 5° South of the Equator and from 120° to 170° West of the universal meridian.

Technically, a full-on El Niño (warming period: red) or La Niña (cooling period: blue) is only declared after five consecutive three-month periods above or below the ±0.5 C° threshold. So far, there have been four months below the lower threshold. If, as seems likely, the period from November to January also crosses the lower threshold, we shall be in a proper La Niña, which may endure for another few months, lengthening the Pause perhaps until the Glasgow climate conference this December. Watch this space.

YearDJFJFMFMAMAMAMJMJJJJAJASASOSONONDNDJ
1950-1.5-1.3-1.2-1.2-1.1-0.9-0.5-0.4-0.4-0.4-0.6-0.8
1951-0.8-0.5-0.20.20.40.60.70.91.01.21.00.8
19520.50.40.30.30.20.0-0.10.00.20.10.00.1
19530.40.60.60.70.80.80.70.70.80.80.80.8
19540.80.50.0-0.4-0.5-0.5-0.6-0.8-0.9-0.8-0.7-0.7
1955-0.7-0.6-0.7-0.8-0.8-0.7-0.7-0.7-1.1-1.4-1.7-1.5
1956-1.1-0.8-0.6-0.5-0.5-0.5-0.6-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.4-0.4
1957-0.20.10.40.70.91.11.31.31.31.41.51.7
19581.81.71.30.90.70.60.60.40.40.40.50.6
19590.60.60.50.30.2-0.1-0.2-0.3-0.10.00.00.0
YearDJFJFMFMAMAMAMJMJJJJAJASASOSONONDNDJ
1960-0.1-0.1-0.10.00.00.00.10.20.30.20.10.1
19610.00.00.00.10.20.30.1-0.1-0.3-0.3-0.2-0.2
1962-0.2-0.2-0.2-0.3-0.3-0.20.0-0.1-0.1-0.2-0.3-0.4
1963-0.4-0.20.20.30.30.50.91.11.21.31.41.3
19641.10.60.1-0.3-0.6-0.6-0.6-0.7-0.8-0.8-0.8-0.8
1965-0.6-0.3-0.10.20.50.81.21.51.92.02.01.7
19661.41.21.00.70.40.20.20.1-0.1-0.1-0.2-0.3
1967-0.4-0.5-0.5-0.4-0.20.00.0-0.2-0.3-0.4-0.3-0.4
1968-0.6-0.7-0.6-0.40.00.30.60.50.40.50.71.0
19691.11.10.90.80.60.40.40.50.80.90.80.6
YearDJFJFMFMAMAMAMJMJJJJAJASASOSONONDNDJ
19700.50.30.30.20.0-0.3-0.6-0.8-0.8-0.7-0.9-1.1
1971-1.4-1.4-1.1-0.8-0.7-0.7-0.8-0.8-0.8-0.9-1.0-0.9
1972-0.7-0.40.10.40.70.91.11.41.61.82.12.1
19731.81.20.5-0.1-0.5-0.9-1.1-1.3-1.5-1.7-1.9-2.0
1974-1.8-1.6-1.2-1.0-0.9-0.8-0.5-0.4-0.4-0.6-0.8-0.6
1975-0.5-0.6-0.7-0.7-0.8-1.0-1.1-1.2-1.4-1.4-1.6-1.7
1976-1.6-1.2-0.7-0.5-0.30.00.20.40.60.80.90.8
19770.70.60.30.20.20.30.40.40.60.70.80.8
19780.70.40.1-0.2-0.3-0.3-0.4-0.4-0.4-0.3-0.10.0
19790.00.10.20.30.20.00.00.20.30.50.50.6
YearDJFJFMFMAMAMAMJMJJJJAJASASOSONONDNDJ
19800.60.50.30.40.50.50.30.0-0.10.00.10.0
1981-0.3-0.5-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.3-0.3-0.2-0.2-0.1-0.2-0.1
19820.00.10.20.50.70.70.81.11.62.02.22.2
19832.21.91.51.31.10.70.3-0.1-0.5-0.8-1.0-0.9
1984-0.6-0.4-0.3-0.4-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.2-0.6-0.9-1.1
1985-1.0-0.8-0.8-0.8-0.8-0.6-0.5-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.3-0.4
1986-0.5-0.5-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.20.40.70.91.11.2
19871.21.21.10.91.01.21.51.71.61.51.31.1
19880.80.50.1-0.3-0.9-1.3-1.3-1.1-1.2-1.5-1.8-1.8
1989-1.7-1.4-1.1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.3-0.3-0.2-0.2-0.2-0.1
YearDJFJFMFMAMAMAMJMJJJJAJASASOSONONDNDJ
19900.10.20.30.30.30.30.30.40.40.30.40.4
19910.40.30.20.30.50.60.70.60.60.81.21.5
19921.71.61.51.31.10.70.40.1-0.1-0.2-0.3-0.1
19930.10.30.50.70.70.60.30.30.20.10.00.1
19940.10.10.20.30.40.40.40.40.60.71.01.1
19951.00.70.50.30.10.0-0.2-0.5-0.8-1.0-1.0-1.0
1996-0.9-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.3-0.3-0.3-0.3-0.4-0.4-0.4-0.5
1997-0.5-0.4-0.10.30.81.21.61.92.12.32.42.4
19982.21.91.41.00.5-0.1-0.8-1.1-1.3-1.4-1.5-1.6
1999-1.5-1.3-1.1-1.0-1.0-1.0-1.1-1.1-1.2-1.3-1.5-1.7
YearDJFJFMFMAMAMAMJMJJJJAJASASOSONONDNDJ
2000-1.7-1.4-1.1-0.8-0.7-0.6-0.6-0.5-0.5-0.6-0.7-0.7
2001-0.7-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.3-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.2-0.3-0.3-0.3
2002-0.10.00.10.20.40.70.80.91.01.21.31.1
20030.90.60.40.0-0.3-0.20.10.20.30.30.40.4
20040.40.30.20.20.20.30.50.60.70.70.70.7
20050.60.60.40.40.30.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.3-0.6-0.8
2006-0.8-0.7-0.5-0.30.00.00.10.30.50.70.90.9
20070.70.30.0-0.2-0.3-0.4-0.5-0.8-1.1-1.4-1.5-1.6
2008-1.6-1.4-1.2-0.9-0.8-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.3-0.4-0.6-0.7
2009-0.8-0.7-0.5-0.20.10.40.50.50.71.01.31.6
YearDJFJFMFMAMAMAMJMJJJJAJASASOSONONDNDJ
20101.51.30.90.4-0.1-0.6-1.0-1.4-1.6-1.7-1.7-1.6
2011-1.4-1.1-0.8-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.5-0.7-0.9-1.1-1.1-1.0
2012-0.8-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.20.10.30.30.30.20.0-0.2
2013-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.2-0.3-0.3-0.4-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.2-0.3
2014-0.4-0.4-0.20.10.30.20.10.00.20.40.60.7
20150.60.60.60.81.01.21.51.82.12.42.52.6
20162.52.21.71.00.50.0-0.3-0.6-0.7-0.7-0.7-0.6
2017-0.3-0.10.10.30.40.40.2-0.1-0.4-0.7-0.9-1.0
2018-0.9-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.10.10.10.20.40.70.90.8
20190.80.80.80.70.60.50.30.10.10.30.50.5
YearDJFJFMFMAMAMAMJMJJJJAJASASOSONONDNDJ
20200.50.60.50.30.0-0.2-0.4-0.6-0.9-1.2-1.3?
4.5 28 votes
Article Rating
340 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tillman
January 14, 2021 6:20 am

Earth has been in a cooling trend for almost five years now, since the peak of 2015-16 Super El Niño in February 2016.

El Niño 2019-20 was strong, but not quite super, as were Los Niños of 1997-98 and 2015-16. It started from a warmer baseline, since no strong La Niña followed 2015-16 Super El Niño, as after 1997-98.

willem post
Reply to  John Tillman
January 14, 2021 8:50 am

Actually the world has been cooling for about 10,000 years, with some warming periods, such as the Grecian/Egyptian warm period, Roman warm period, Medieval warm period, and Present warm period, each about 2000 years apart.

Reply to  willem post
January 14, 2021 9:54 am

And it’s cooling now:

comment image

Reply to  willem post
January 14, 2021 9:58 am

Begin 2021 the same:

comment image

RelPerm
Reply to  willem post
January 14, 2021 8:30 pm

Actually the world has been cooling the last 3.5 million years… The next glaciation will be a doozy!

philincalifornia
Reply to  John Tillman
January 14, 2021 9:47 am
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 14, 2021 11:50 am

The layers of climate distortions are so deep, they peel away like an onion to reveal only more layers of distortion and deceptions.

Loydo
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 15, 2021 7:31 pm

No what needs to be peeled away are the layers of climate delusion right here.

ALL the data show 2020 to have been close to another hottest in the record year – just behind 2016. But no, lets ignore that, lets even ignore the relentless oceanic warming where nearly all the energy is going and instead count how many angels can dance on the end of a pause. A so-called pause that is nothing but a scrap of statistically insignificant, cherry-picked noise.

Unabashed doubt-mongering; make up a load of rubbish about a statistical artifact and endlessly post about it into the echo-chamber.

“See, so much for global warming when its cooling”. And, and “even if it is warming (but it isn’t) but even if it is, its steps, and how can we cause steps, thats just impossible”. Must be El Nino I tells ya.

Delusion all the way down the rabbit hole and unsurprisingly zero absolutely zero skepticism of this charlatan from the D-team.

Last edited 6 months ago by Loydo
david hamilton russell
Reply to  Loydo
January 16, 2021 4:27 am

IF almost all the warming is “going into the ocean” then GHG’s have nothing to do with GW, as GHG IR cannot warm the oceans. Only surface insolation can warm the oceans.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 14, 2021 12:18 pm

Alarmists specialize in making “warmer by an insignificant fraction” seem scary. Notice that only the mean is reported. The uncertainty bounds are not reported.

Loydo
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 14, 2021 4:07 pm

Yeah, but that’s why we say its cooling. “New pause?” No Clyde, the same old one.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 21, 2021 1:31 am

Yep a bit lower and we will be back to the 2001-2015 pause level.

Making a total MOCKERY of the AGW meme

Just like YOU do , loy-dumb.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
January 14, 2021 12:12 pm

Interestingly, the MSM seems to be ramping up with alarmist articles in anticipation of Biden pushing his climate agenda. Today there was an NBC news article claiming that 2020 was either the second warmest year or tied with 2016.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2020-second-hottest-record-noaa-182900453.html

I suspect we can expect a flurry of these kinds of articles in the coming weeks in order to drum up support for Biden’s expected actions. Why do I have the feeling I’m being herded to the slaughter house?

Last edited 6 months ago by Clyde Spencer
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 14, 2021 1:08 pm

You can bet there will be a concerted effort on the Left to push the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.

Biden says he is going to declare a national emergency. That will turn the leftwing/alarmist rhetoric up to 11.

Skeptics are going to be on the Left’s radar. Our freedom of speech is definitely in more danger than it has ever been. We have determined socialist aiming to take it away from us, and now they have the political power.

But us freedom lovers aren’t finished by a long shot. We are at least 75 million strong, and other than a few at the Capital Building, we aren’t stupid, and we aren’t going away.

MorinMoss
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 15, 2021 12:47 am

You picked Trump as Dear Leader – twice – so “we aren’t stupid” will require considerable proof.
But we’re into the 2nd year of a new solar cycle so Piers Corbyn’s prediction of a new Little Ice Age should be coming true any day now

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MorinMoss
January 15, 2021 5:47 am

You’ll be seeing real “stupid” about January 21, 2021, when Biden starts proposing his changes.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 15, 2021 8:54 am

Tom, he doesn’t need to wait that long to see “real stupid”, as all he needs do is look in any mirror anytime he wants to see it.

MorinMoss
Reply to  John Endicott
January 16, 2021 7:28 pm

Your Dear Leader is asking the rub…er, brave devoted patriots for $2 billion USD for his beautiful, yuuuugge, bigly tremendous Presidential Library.
Only the smartest, bestest & most terrific a-brains are being called upon to donate. Please give generously.

MorinMoss
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 17, 2021 12:24 pm

Armed protestors are gathering at state Capitols including Texas, Ohio and – again – Michigan.
I fear “stupid” is somewhat overrepresented in the Freedumb demographic

john harmsworth
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 15, 2021 8:30 am

A determined grifter, more like. This Warming scam is the greatest vehicle for ripping off the public that has ever been conceived. Sleepy Joe is a 47 year master of it.

QQBoss
January 14, 2021 6:26 am

Cue the commenters saying you are cherry picking your start and end dates because they don’t understand what cherry picking data means…

Bellman
Reply to  QQBoss
January 14, 2021 6:48 am

Could you enlighten me as to what cherry picking data means?

TRM
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 6:53 am

You try all the different starting points until you find one that gives you the result you want. As I understand the method for this Mr Monckton “starts” at the current date and goes backwards.

Bellman
Reply to  TRM
January 14, 2021 7:03 am

Goes backwards until he finds the earliest start date that gives him a negative trend. Then picks that date as the start of his current trend line. I’d call that cherry picking.

QQBoss
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 7:26 am

et voila

Bellman
Reply to  QQBoss
January 14, 2021 7:30 am

So why do you think this is not cherry-picking?

QQBoss
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 7:38 am

The day he starts with is always the most recent day of data he has. This can’t be cherry picking by definition. The end date is based on a calculation which can not do anything but find the result of the calculation- this is not cherry picking, either. If today, the date goes back 10 years, but tomorrow’s data only goes back 1 week, and 1 week isn’t what he would like to see but is still what is reported, it isn’t cherry picking.

Instead, if he were to choose a starting date, for example, that he already knows was the coldest date in the range of time that seems plausible (or he can conveniently ignore more recent data saying he just hasn’t looked at it yet, particularly if that data is trivially available) and stretches that back to the hottest day that he can find (or create, if necessary, kind of like many of the Warmists do, but in reverse), that would actually be cherry picking.

QQBoss
Reply to  QQBoss
January 14, 2021 7:48 am

To correct myself, I actually meant quarter, not day. It is late, my error.

Bellman
Reply to  QQBoss
January 14, 2021 7:53 am

The end date is based on a calculation which can not do anything but find the result of the calculation- this is not cherry picking, either.

I’ve had this conversation here numerous times, and it always comes down to people thinking that if you choose a start date using an algorithm that gives the result you want, it isn’t cherry-picking. I can’t understand why this isn’t the most blatant form of cherry-picking.

…and 1 week isn’t what he would like to see but is still what is reported…

Except Monckton does stop reporting on it, the instance the pause, by his definition, vanishes. Using this logic there existed a pause for 16 years or what ever, that then disappeared overnight, and now there’s a different pause that’s only lasted for just over 5 years. If you insist that you always have to end the trend line at today’s date it’s impossible to claim there was a pause in the past.

But let’s look at my counter-example to see if you regard this as cherry-picking or not. Say I wanted to talk about a period of rapid warming as anything over 3°C / century – that’s more than twice the underlying rate of warming, a bigger deviation than the pause. I also want to show this rapid warming as continuing for the longest period of time possible, so I employ the Monckton Method – start with today’s date and look back over every month as a possible start date – choose the earliest date for which the trend is greater than 3°C.

This turns out to be currently January 2006. So I declare there has been 15 years of warming at more than 3°C per century. In your opinion, is this cherry-picking?

Last edited 6 months ago by Bellman
MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 8:04 am

The goal is to find out how far back the pause goes.
He starts from the present and counts backwards.

There isn’t even a hint of cherry picking in that method.

The fact that you have to work so hard to distract from the results with your slanderous charges of cherry picking is just more evidence that you couldn’t care less about the science of the data. It’s the result you are afteer.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 8:15 am

There isn’t even a hint of cherry picking in that method.

I beg to differ, but I notice you haven’t addressed my counter example. My goal was to find out how far the >3°C / century warming went back, I started at the present and counted backwards. Do you see even a hint of cherry picking in what I did?

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 8:49 am

The problem with your example Bellman is that if you started at today’s date, and worked backwards to find a trend of >3ºC per century, you wouldn’t find it. It simply hasn’t happened. And the farther you go back, the less likely you are to find such a trend. The only way “cherry picking” works is if you can pick both the starting and end points.

Bellman
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
January 14, 2021 10:05 am

The problem with your example Bellman is that if you started at today’s date, and worked backwards to find a trend of >3ºC per century, you wouldn’t find it. It simply hasn’t happened.

But I did find it – I wasn’t making the values up, the trend from the start of 2006 to December 2020 is +3.01°C / century.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 11:20 am

No you didn’t find it by following Lord M’s method, because if you did, you’d have had to stop just as you began. Same as when Lord M had to stop talking about the pause when he could no longer find a pause starting at the current day. Instead you cherry picked a day that would give you the 3.01°C / century result you were looking for. In short you are the one picking cherries here, not Lord M.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 11:31 am

Bellman your method is not cherrypicking re 3C example, but it differs from Monckton’s in this way: were your back survey to start with, say 3C and 10yrs earlier it was 3.5C and a further 10 yrs back it was 4C, your scientific observation of a two decade period of above normal would not be a proper characterization of what is going on. Monckton’s survey is precise and unequivocal in its conclusion.

Dave Gait
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 12:22 pm

How can the same period have two different trends?

TRM
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
January 14, 2021 5:46 pm

Thank you. Excellent example of why starting at current date prevents cherry picking.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 9:26 am

What you did isn’t cherry picking.
Of course you still need to justify why 3C level is meaningful, but the method you used to find it isn’t cherry picking.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 2:09 pm

I don’t claim the 3°C level is meaningful, but it’s no less meaningful than the 0°C level.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 3:47 pm

So having no change, when the models say there should be lots of change isn’t meaningfull?
Boy you are bending over backwards to make a fool of yourself today.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 12:24 pm

“slanderous charges of cherry picking”

Don’t think its slanderous,

…. just a case of total lack of basic comprehension and mathematical competence..

You can’t blame a chihuahua for yapping, can you.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 9:23 am

Except Monckton does stop reporting on it, the instance the pause, by his definition, vanishes.

Because he’s reporting on the “current ongoing pause” by definition, once temps are no longer pausing there’s no “current ongoing pause” to report on.

If you insist that you always have to end the trend line at today’s date it’s impossible to claim there was a pause in the past.

past pauses aren’t “current and ongoing” by definition. If you want to know about those, you need to use a method more suitable to the task. It’s called using the right tool for the specific job you want to accomplish. You don’t use a hammer to cut wood, after all.

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
January 14, 2021 9:27 am

Bellman isn’t arguing for understanding, he’s arguing for distraction.

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Endicott
January 14, 2021 5:09 pm

I suggest it is instructive to use Bob Tisdale’s method of graphing, annually, the value of the average temperatures over the preceding 30 years.
comment image?w=640&h=563

If warming rates have plateaued in the 21st Century, even as human CO2 emissions have rapidly increased, how can one say that CO2 will drive warming in the future?

Last edited 6 months ago by Dave Fair
D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 9:43 am

Your methodology is correct, and within the parameters under discussion, not cherry-picking. However, I don’t think your results are correct. If I use HADCRUT4 global data for 2006 to 2020 I get about 1.4°C per century (using data from Wood for Trees). Can you elaborate on your means and methods?

fred250
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
January 14, 2021 12:27 pm

Please stop extrapolating your time period out passed the data range..

state it as 0.14ºC/decade, by all means

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 14, 2021 2:14 pm

Please stop claiming I’m extrapolating beyond the data. Per century is a rate of change, not a claim that something has been happening for a century. Do you object to someone say a car drove at 60mph if it only drove for 10 minutes?

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 2:39 pm

ROFLMAO

Again the mathematical IGNORANCE is highlighted

Thanks Bell-hop

Yes, you ARE extrapolating your rate of change outside your data length

The answer you give is MEANINGLESS with those units..

Pity you didn’t actually pay attention in school, isn’t it.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 14, 2021 3:39 pm

And when do you call out Lord Monckton’s mathematical ignorance when he says:

“That is equivalent to a not particularly terrifying centennial warming rate of 1.25 C° over the 19 years covering the two pauses and the warming in between.”

or all his graphs in this post showing a warming or cooling rate measured in degrees per century?

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 3:49 pm

Bellman, just because your reading comprehension level never got out of grade school is not evidence that Lord Monckton made a mistake.

Try reading that again, this time concentrate on comprehending the statement, rather than looking for something to disagree with.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 5:11 pm

Read what I said in context. I was replying to fred250 who thinks it’s “mathematical ignorance” to talk about a warming trend per century if you’re talking about a period of less than a century. I’m merely pointing out that if I’m ignorant,so is Lord Monckton as he does exactly the same thing. He does it again several times in a comment addressed to me here.

I’m not saying Lord Monckton is wrong. I’m actually saying Lord Monckton is correct and it’s perfectly fine to use degrees per century, rather than as fed250 prefers degrees per decade.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 3:18 pm

Let’s call it 30ºC/millennium, then

See how STUPID that sounds !!

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 3:29 pm

I object to someone saying the car’s speed is trending at 60mph if one only measured 10 minutes of a drive across the country. Per century is only a rate of change if you have a century or more of data. It would be like measuring my growth in height from birth to age 10 and then claim that my growth rate is 50 feet per century.

Bellman
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
January 14, 2021 3:41 pm

No office I wasn’t breaking the speed limit, you see it’s measured in miles per hour, but I wasn’t driving for an hour.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 3:55 pm

You don’t know what a “trend” is do you Bellman?

Bellman
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
January 14, 2021 5:25 pm

I’m using “trend” to mean rate of change. Maybe that’s not the most technically correct definition, but it’s how I usually see people using the word.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 12:22 pm

“15 years of warming at more than 3°C per century.”

Only a mathematical incompetent extrapolates data outside the period of their data.

Oh .. its you Bellhop.. that explains things.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 14, 2021 12:32 pm

You’ve made that accusation before. In what way do you think I’ve extrapolated data outside the data period? I’m genuinely confused by what you think you’re saying.

If you are confused by my use of “per century”, I assume you have similar problems when people talk about a cars speed in terms of miles per hour. I also assume you object to Lord Monckton saying “..centennial warming rate of 1.25 C° over the 19 years…”.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 2:41 pm

“I’m genuinely confused”

Yes we know you are genuinely CONFUSED.

That is patently obvious.

The niceties of proper mathematics continue to elude you..

….. and probably always will.

I am trying to ease your confusion.

Maybe you should start to listen and learn. !

Last edited 6 months ago by fred250
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 3:27 pm

Bellhop is, as usual, prejudiced. If he will trouble to read the head posting, he will see that in the past 19 years there has been a far slower warming rate than that which he found by cherry-picking his start-date. As many commenters here have explained to him, my Pause method starts at the first date that gives a zero trend between then and the present. I had fairly pointed out that between the last Pause and this one there had been an overall rising trend of 0.3 K, equivalent to little more than 1 K/century. However, as the head posting explains, we are going into a la Nina, which will probably give us some cooling over the coming months, lengthening the new Pause.

IPCC (1990) predicted medium-term warming at 3.4 C/century equivalent. In the 30 years since then, the trend has been less than half that. One reason is these Pauses that occur from time to time. It appears we may be entering another one.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 14, 2021 4:21 pm

Thanks for the clarifications.

If he will trouble to read the head posting, he will see that in the past 19 years there has been a far slower warming rate than that which he found by cherry-picking his start-date.

Yes I was cherry-picking my start dates in order to show how this works. My main point is that the rate of warming over the last 19 years, or the 23 years since the start of your first pause are not that different to the warming UAH shows over it’s entire run. It’s easier to assume that what we are seeing is a consistent linear rate of warming with year to year variations, than to look at short term trends and claim they represent some new trend. This is especially true if you choose the start point to maximize the alleged change.

As many commenters here have explained to him, my Pause method starts at the first date that gives a zero trend between then and the present.

Thanks. That’s exactly how I thought you derived the start point, but others seem to disagree. It’s the earliest start point that will give a negative trend that is chosen. And that point is chosen so as to give the longest possible pause, it doesn’t matter if later starting dates give positive trends, as some here seem to think.

I used the same method to find the earliest date that would give a greater than 0.3°C / decade warming rate, and as you agree – this is considered cherry-picking.

However, as the head posting explains, we are going into a la Nina, which will probably give us some cooling over the coming months, lengthening the new Pause.

I think this is very likely. But the new “pause will still be warmer than the old one.

IPCC (1990) predicted medium-term warming at 3.4 C/century equivalent. In the 30 years since then, the trend has been less than half that. One reason is these Pauses that occur from time to time.

The trend in UAH since 1990 is 1.46°C/century, not less than 3.4°C/century. It’s interesting that the trend over the last 30 years is greater than the trend over the last 40, despite two thirds of it being in a state of “pause”. If pauses are actually slowing down the rate of warming I cannot see clear evidence of that in the UAH data. And it’s really only the UAH data that an early 2st century pause looks remotely plausible.

One of my arguments with pauses is to look at the trend up to the start of the pause and after it. Has the pause caused a significant change in the trend. In the case of UAH I’d say the reverse is true, pauses are actually increasing the trend, though not significantly. Up to 1997 the trend was just 0.89°C / century, by the end of the 1st pause / start of the 2nd it was 1.10°C century, and at this point in the new pause it’s 1.38°C / century.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 11:42 pm

Bellhop appears incapable of understanding that a zero trend will give less warming than a positive trend.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 15, 2021 6:55 am

Unfortunately, Lord Monckton still seems incapable of understanding why “zero trends” do not always result in slowing a positive trend, despite ample evidence, including this very blog post demonstrates the contrary.

Using Monckton’s carefully selected endpoints, the entire period of UAH since January 1995 to the present day has been in a state of “zero trend”. Yet as this post admits there has been a significant rate of warming during this period.

So, how much more warming would there have been if there had been periods of positive trends rather than zero trends. We can easily see by carefully selecting endpoints that do give us positive trends. By my careful selection of start points I see these trends:

January 2011 – December 2020: +5.1°C / century
December 2005 – December 2010: +3.2°C / century
March 1999 – November 2005: +3.5°C / century
July 1992 – February 1999: +10.0°C / century (!)

That’s almost 30 years, including the entirety of the two pauses, of positive trends. Yet the overall rate of warming since July 1992 to present is 1.55°C / century, much lower than all these cherry-picked positive trends.

The reason there’s a big difference between the short term, trends with carefully selected endpoints, don’t tell us much about the underlying trend is that trends are 2-dimonsional. They don’t just have a rate of change, they also have a starting and end point, and if you deliberately select endpoints, you get trends that are starting higher or lower than the previous trend.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
January 15, 2021 2:22 pm

Bellman continues to fail to understand that long periods without any warming, when warming is predicted, will tend to slow the long-term warming rate, which – despite his lamentable arithmetic – is less than half what IPCC had originally predicted in 1990. In 2013, in response to pressure from expert reviewers such as me, it greatly reduced its medium-term warming projection to conform to observation, but somehow failed to reduce its long-term (ECS) projection, whether commensurately or at all.

And, as the second half of the head posting demonstrates, it is necessary to divide the currently-projected 4 K ECS by at least 3 to conform to real-world observation, ending the imagined (and imaginary) climate “emergency”.

No doubt Bellman is well paid to try to disrupt these threads, but he is not making a good fist of it.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 16, 2021 5:20 am

Bellman continues to fail to understand that long periods without any warming, when warming is predicted, will tend to slow the long-term warming rate,

A long period without warming, may but won’t necessarily slow the long-term warming rate, but first you have to establish that there really has been a long period with no warming. Arbitrarily picking start and end points to find a zero rate of warming is not a good way of achieving this. It tends to mean your pause starts just as temperatures get warmer and / or ends at a cooler point. Just as looking for periods of accelerated warming will be starting at or just before cold points and finishing at warmer periods. Both produce discontinuous trends that are unlikely to represent the real world.

I do wonder if you’ve though through the consequences of what you are claiming. On one hand you are claiming there is such a thing as “The Great Pause” which lasted 19 years, almost half the entire UAH period. Yet on the other hand you are using data collected over this pause period to calculate ECS. If the Great Pause is a real thing it presumably has some cause we don’t yet understand, but presumably wasn’t caused by increasing CO2. Therefore, any calculation of ECS based on the trend over this peiod is going to be biased low. The rate of warming caused by CO2 must be greater than what we see over the last 30 years because whatever caused the Great Pause is being subtracted from the true rate of warming.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
January 15, 2021 6:57 am

The trend in UAH since 1990 is 1.46°C/century, not less than 3.4°C/century.

Argh – I’m an idiot who tries to make clever points well past my bed time. Yes of course 1.46 is less than half 3.4. Sorry.

Loydo
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 14, 2021 4:42 pm

“my Pause method…”

Um no, it’s more like you and some your little chorus refuse to acknowledge that your cherry picking “method” is no more significant or relevant than Bellman’s cherry picking “method”.

No matter how you twist and squirm, its not a “new pause” its just the same old Monckton method. Second, these little pausoids you see are just noise; flicks of the tail of the dog of oceanic warming. If you’re trying to refute the relentles rise if global average temperatures you might want to start where nearly all of it is.

Show us the oceanic pause.

Mr.
Reply to  Loydo
January 14, 2021 5:40 pm

But surely no rational adult would draw any conclusions at all about some barely detectable change in an ocean’s temperature at any given spot over a 30-year period.

Surely?

A thousand years or so and there would something to take note of.

And that note would probably be something like –
“geez, this warmup hasn’t happened since, oh – the last time it happened . . . “

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Loydo
January 14, 2021 11:39 pm

Loydo, whose posts drip with sullen prejudice, is unaware that where the runs in a staircase are a good deal longer than the rises the pitch of the stair will be small. Yes, the world has been warming (though not for five years and four months). But the rate of warming is unquestionably moderated by the length of the pauses in that warming. Furthermore, as the second half of the posting demonstrates, the likely future warming rate will be about the same as the past warming rate – i.e., about 1.2 degrees per century equivalent. And that is about a third of what official climatology has been predicting.

Loydo
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 15, 2021 2:50 am

Indeed, indeed, but where does statistical significance enter? I guess it doesn’t if you’re intent on forging a career monetizing short term climate fluctuations.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Loydo
January 15, 2021 2:34 pm

In response to the hate-filled “Loydo”, I have no need to forge a career: I already have a solid one behind me. Nor do I have any need to “monetize” my climate research. If “Loydo” were more open-minded, it would realize that the climate Communists receive some 5000 times more subsidy – or, in economic parlance, “rent” – than those who dare to question the Party Line.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 15, 2021 7:01 am

…where the runs in a staircase are a good deal longer than the rises the pitch of the stair will be small.

Which is completely irrelevant when looking at a graph where the x and y axis are different. You cannot say the the runs are bigger or smaller than the rises, when the runs are measured in years and the pitches in Celsius.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
January 15, 2021 2:24 pm

Bellman yet again displays his bottomless, elementary mathematical ignorance. The frequent and prolonged Pauses in global temperature are the runs; the short and steep (usually el-Nino-driven) increases are the rises. It’s not difficult if the truth, rather than the climate Communist party line, is the objective.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 14, 2021 5:30 pm

In support of Lord M’s position, here is Bob Tisdale’s work again:
comment image?w=640&h=563

Over all the “climate periods” consisting of 30-year averages, temperatures are limited to a maximum warming rate of about 0.2C/decade, regardless of the magnitude or rate of increase of human CO2 production. I know that the UN IPCC CliSci crowd and associated climate hysteria profiteers will not acknowledge such inconvenient facts.

Last edited 6 months ago by Dave Fair
PCman999
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 10:18 pm

How about this to make it easy: look at all the data we have, and look at all times, stretces of years where the temps don’t trend upward, especially after the 1998 El Nino, the years China, India, Indonesia, etc., were burning coal at ever increasing levels. Why did the steady upward trend of the 80’s and 90’s stop? A true green scientist might look at that and may say we have to stop burning coal because the soot is blocking the Sun and slowing the natural warming of the Earth as it continues to come out of the ice age, would never look at 1.5°C over 1000 years as something other than a bonus. They also wouldn’t deceptively quote ocean warming in zeta joules, with mentioning the tiny °C equivalent because they want the scare value.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  QQBoss
January 14, 2021 12:27 pm

Something can be said for visually inspecting the graph of a time series and looking for obvious changes in a trend. That is not unlike plotting topography elevation to look for abrupt changes called knickpoints to predict the location of a waterfall or rapids along the course of a river. Where cherry picking may be disingenuous is where the author doesn’t logically justify the choice of dates. If visual inspection reveals plateaus in a temperature graph, it is valid to draw attention to that and note the step-like behavior of the temperature.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 8:02 am

Not even close to being cherry picking.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 11:47 am

“not cherry-picking?”

The mathematics does the selection of the starting point.

Why is that SO HARD for you to understand, Bellhop ?

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 14, 2021 12:37 pm

What I find hard to understand is why anyone thinks that selecting, mathematically, a start point to derive a desired trend is any less cherry picking than say guessing, or choosing a point at random. The only difference between picking cherries by hand and picking them with a machine, is that a machine is more efficient at picking cherries.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 3:51 pm

How is selecting a starting point of today, cherry picking.
Looks like your english comprehension skills are even weaker than your mathematical abilities.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 5:54 pm

I prefer to think of time as running forward, so I would say he’s fixing the ending point as today, and then selecting the starting point to find the longest “pause” that he can. But it makes no difference what you name the two points, he’s still selecting one of them for a purpose.

Monckton himself termed this the endpoint fallacy, where by carefully selecting an end or start point, you could make a trend look like anything you wanted.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
January 15, 2021 2:30 pm

It’s really not difficult, if the truth is the objective. Question: for how long has there been no global warming trend? Answer: 5 years 4 months.

Of course that news is unwelcome to those who adhere to the Party Line, because there is a good prospect of the Pause lengthening if we get a few more months of la Nina, combined with increased northern-hemisphere albedo from extensive snow cover.

As official climatology itself pointed out in 2008, a period of 15 years or more without a global warming trend indicates that the models’ predictions were wrong. The Great Pause of 1997-2015 was almost 19 years long. The present Pause could lengthen quite a lot if the la Nina persists for a few months more.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 16, 2021 4:45 am

It’s a correct but misleading answer to a silly and misleading question.

Let me, again, make an equally daft Q&A. Question: for how long has there been global warming at a faster rate than 5°C per century? Answer: 10 years and 1 month.

Both Q&A’s fail for a number of reasons. They ignore the huge confidence intervals for such periods of time, they both define an exact start point for trends that are anything but exact, and they both ignore the context of any existing trend.

To quote a certain Christopher Monckton of Brenchley on the subject

No reliance can be placed upon purported temperature trends that depend arbitrarily upon a careful selection of start-dates and end-dates. The reason is that the temperature record is what scientists call “stochastic” – it jumps up and down more or less at random, so that the trend-line calculated from it (the straight line in each of the above graphs) is highly sensitive to the scientists’ choice of startpoints and endpoints.

SPPI Original Paper – CLIMATEGATE:CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED!

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
January 17, 2021 1:31 pm

A graph showing my carefully selected start point to give 10 years of greater than 5°C / century warming. The Pause months are shown in blue.

comment image

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
January 17, 2021 1:34 pm

Here’s the graph of the entire UAH data, comparing the overall trend with the trend over the course of the two Pauses.

comment image

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
January 15, 2021 2:35 pm

Question: For how long has there been no global warming trend? Answer: 5 years 4 months. Simple.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 1:37 pm

Where should the trend start?

HINT: If you don’t say the Middle Paleolithic, when Homo sapiens first arose, you’re cherry picking.

GregK
Reply to  Shanghai Dan
January 15, 2021 1:09 am

The Middle Paleolithic extends from around 300,000 years bp to about 30,000 years bp…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Paleolithic… so provides a bit of wriggle room for when you’d like to start. Perhaps the start of the Middle Paleolithic. But then there is evidence that H. erectus used fire to cook so the homo CO2 addition to the atmosphere may go back 400,000 years.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 8:02 am

His goal is to find out how long the pause has been.
This is the process to determine that.
Only those who are determined to ignore the data would object.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 8:45 am

And Bellman’s goal was to find out how long the >3°C per century rate of warming has been going on. So we have a ‘pause’ from September 2015 and, simultaneously, a period of greater than +3°C that incorporates that pause, starting in Jan 2006. I’d call that a whole bowl of cherries!

John Endicott
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 14, 2021 10:03 am

Except, as Lord M has already shown, Bellman’s claimed results clearly don’t follow Lord M’s method, because if they did, he’d have stumbled right out of the starting gate.The reason Lord M stopped reporting on “the pause” for a few years is the same reason Bellman’s claim is bogus: starting from today and going backwards you can’t claim to have found a >3°C per century rate of warming by going backwards from the present when the first 5+ years of going backwards by that method clearly show no such warming. Bellman’s attempt to do so would fail right out of the gate with a “not currently happening” result (same as Lord M got a few years ago when the “pause” was no longer connected to the current date), had he actually tried to do it rather then assert it without doing the work

Last edited 6 months ago by John Endicott
Bellman
Reply to  John Endicott
January 14, 2021 10:39 am

starting from today and going backwards you can’t claim to have found a >3°C per century rate of warming by going backwards from the present when the first 5+ years of going backwards by that method clearly show no such warming.

I’m not sure you understand how trends or Monckton’s pause works. It’s entirely possible to have a trend that is different to a shorter period within the trend. That is, it’s correct the trend from 2015 is slightly negative, but the trend from 2006 is positive.

If you think that Monckton’s pause reuires that every trend back to the start has to be negative you are completely wrong. For example, the trend from 2017 to present is very positive, over 4°C / century.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 11:23 am

And you clearly don’t understand how Lord M’s method (at least willfull so). He starts at the present and works backwards. You didn’t, you cherry picked 2006 as your start point because it gave you the desired result going to the present. In short you didn’t do the work, you only made an assertion that is false.

Last edited 6 months ago by John Endicott
Bellman
Reply to  John Endicott
January 14, 2021 12:40 pm

You didn’t, you cherry picked 2006 as your start point because it gave you the desired result going to the present.

No I didn’t. I calculated all the trends from each month to the present, and looked back to see how far I could go and get a trend of greater than 3°C / century. Monckton calculates all the trends from each month to the present and looks back to see how far he can go and get a non-positive trend.

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
January 14, 2021 3:53 pm

He probably does understand, however his goal is not and never has been the exchange of scientific ideas.
He’s here to disrupt and distract.
Unfortunately he’s very good at it.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 11:44 am

And further proof that you didn’t do the work but rather cherry picked for the desired result: you now claim 2017 to present as more than fitting your criteria, but as 2015 to present doesn’t, by Lord M’s method you’d have to stop long before ever reaching 2006 as your positive trend, as you work your way backwards, stops being positive long before then.

By your cherry picking method Lord M could easily have found a “pause” that starts further back than 2015 to present same as you did for 2006 and >3. But working backwards from present, as Lord M does, causes him to stop at 2015 when the trend stops.

Last edited 6 months ago by John Endicott
Bellman
Reply to  John Endicott
January 14, 2021 12:47 pm

…by Lord M’s method you’d have to stop long before ever reaching 2006 as your positive trend, as you work your way backwards, stops being positive long before then.

You seem to think that Lord Monckton looks back at each start month going backwards and stops as soon as he finds a positive trend. That cannot be correct as my reference to the 2017 starting point makes clear.

By your cherry picking method Lord M could easily have found a “pause” that starts further back than 2015…

He could not. If he could tell me which start point prior to 2015 gives a negative trend. And really, do you think if Monckton knew that he could get, say, a 10 year zero trend to the present he wouldn’t be talking about a 10 year pause?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 12:38 pm

What is critical is that an author carefully define what they are doing, and why, and explain why it is important. A warming hiatus characterizes either past step-like growth, or a possible end of growth, if it represents the most recent period.

A past high growth-rate found only in history is possibly of importance in demonstrating a recent decline in warming rates. Is that what you are trying to demonstrate?

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 14, 2021 12:31 pm

“And Bellman’s goal was to find out how long the >3°C per century rate of warming has been going on.”

Calculating backwards from now…… FAILS in every one of the first 10 years at least

Your mathematical comprehension is, as always, TOTALLY LACKING

Oh, and there is not a century of data, so you can’t calculate ANYTHING “per century”

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 14, 2021 2:38 pm

Calculating backwards from now…… FAILS in every one of the first 10 years at least

Lets see. From the start of each year to present – and just for you measuring in per decades.

2006: 0.30°C / decade
2007: 0.33°C / decade
2008: 0.39°C / decade
2009: 0.34°C / decade
2010: 0.35°C / decade
2011: 0.51°C / decade
2012: 0.48°C / decade
2013: 0.41°C / decade
2014: 0.34°C / decade
2015: 0.18°C / decade
2016:-0.05°C / decade (Start of Monckton’s Pause)
2017: 0.48°C / decade
2018: 1.19°C / decade
2019: 0.45°C / decade

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 15, 2021 2:31 pm

TheFinalNail should try reading the head posting, where it is made plain that over the 19 years incorporating both Pauses and the period since 2006 the warming trend is an unexciting 1.25 K/century equivalent.

michael hart
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 12:59 pm

Yes, MarkW. The only cherry picking is the use of the word “pause”. In my version of the English language this only means going backwards from an obviously implied point in time (to another point, only determined by the algorithm).
In the general context of the discussion that only means from the present time backwards.

Bellend is only playing with words, not mathematics.

menace
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 8:56 am

“Goes backwards until he finds the earliest start date that gives him a negative trend.”

It looks to me like he just started at the next month after the first pause “ended” (which he stated was Aug 2015). Close scrutiny of the end point of plot #1 and the start point of plot #2 compared with the data shown in plot #3 bears this out.

However “cherry picking” is just a red herring to distract people from the point. The data doesn’t lie. The data shows there was no significant trend in global temperatures from 1997-2015 and no significant trend from 2015 to present. And from 1997 to present the trend shows that temps rose 0.3 C, which indicates a warming rate of 1.3 C per century, which is far less than the IPCC model ensembles predict. Does saying “cherry picking!” discount that fact too?

fred250
Reply to  menace
January 14, 2021 11:09 am

“The data doesn’t lie”

That’s why AGW cultists hate it so much 🙂

Bellman
Reply to  menace
January 14, 2021 2:42 pm

It looks to me like he just started at the next month after the first pause “ended” (which he stated was Aug 2015).

I think that’s just a coincidence. Give it a few more months and the start date will change. But it is a good point – Monckton’s two pauses have zero time between them, yet in between the two pauses global temperatures rose by 0.3°C. Either something truly sensational happened to global temperatures between 31st August and 1st September 2015, or these two trend lines are giving a misleading impression.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 11:04 am

Again, the AGW sympathisers show that basic mathematical understanding is BEYOND them

So funny ! 🙂

So little warming that we argue about how long ZERO TREND lines are. 🙂

Many places have no warming back to 1997

CET for example. 😉

Arctic, Siberia have no warming back to the 1940’s

gbaikie
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 1:24 pm

It’s an argument against idea of ever cumulating global temperature which expected with ever cumulating CO2 levels.
The recent “trend” is not “yet” as good as the “great pause” but it’s possible it will become greater due to somewhat predictable factors.

The only argument against it, is that for some reason, more heat was “lost” in the ocean. Which means that even more heat in future “might be lost in the ocean”.
Which actually point to what global temperature, “actually” is, which the average temperature of the entire ocean.
Global temperature is NOT about 15 C as indicated by poorly measured global surface air temperature, it’s the average temperature of entire ocean, which is about 3.5 C.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 9:56 pm

That’s the exact process required to compute the “period of no warming”. Totally different than cherry-picking

barry
Reply to  Bellman
January 15, 2021 7:44 pm

Curious what it would look like if we compared the linear trend from the very beginning of the satellite record to 2016, and then to present:

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:2017/trend/plot/uah6/to:2021/trend

It appears that the total satellite temp trend has increased from 2016 to 2020, despite there being a *pause* over the last 5 years or so.

I prefer doing it this way, because it is harder to accuse the choice as ‘cherry-picking’. i’m just using as much data as i possibly can, and not allowing any selectivity beyond what is absolutely necessary for the comparison.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 8:05 am

Cherry picking would be picking the coldest time in the last 200 years to start measuring warming from.

QQBoss
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 8:32 am

I don’t necessarily agree, MarkW. If the question being asked was “Starting from today, how far back can we go to find the longest warming trend” then it really wouldn’t be cherry picking. It also wouldn’t tell us jack squat about whether the world is actually warming overall since it would ignore data prior to that. But that is ok- valid question asked and validly answered. If you want to know if the world is actually warming, ask a different question.

True cherry picking would be saying “starting from hottest time we know, go back to the coldest time we know” and saying that proves the world is going to be a cinder in 20 years time. It ignores events both prior and post. But it might at least be useful to be a start to finding meaningful cycles if repeated again and again back in time and perhaps alternated with the inverse of the question, but as a one shot it is fairly empty of real value.

I believe the Divining Lord M. is not using his statement to say the world is burning up nor that the world will go into a deep freeze, just that for some recent span of time neither of those is apparently happening. That is a perfectly valid question to ask and his approach is a perfectly valid way of saying how long this most recent time has been.

Nor is he using his current results to extrapolate future behavior which is Climate Science’s biggest sin: Hey, let’s look at this wave from -PI/2 to PI/2 and linearly extrapolate where it will be when it reaches PI.. my model says that sin wave can never decrease in value and thus children will never know what snow is….

Now, when the length of time exceeds an amount of time that the Warmists say statistically significant warming must have occurred, it might give us some additional information that can be used in contradiction. That would be an additional paper, I would guess.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 8:56 am

In fact, there is zero trend in the HadCRUT4 data set from 1850 to 1930: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1930/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1930/trend

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 14, 2021 12:35 pm

ROFLMAO

They had basically no measurements for most of the Southern Hemisphere over that period.

Its a fabrication. Are you SO DUMB that you didn’t know that ?

Even Phil Jones, who fabricated the data, stated as such.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 10:39 am

Seems to me that “cherry picking” could be applied to any date, such as Bellman’s 2006 start date.

If you don’t want the possibility of cherry picking, you need to go back to the beginning – so about 4.5bya. What’s the trend from the beginning to the present?

fred250
Reply to  TonyG
January 14, 2021 11:12 am

Certainly a COOLING TREND for the last 10,000 years. !

Reply to  fred250
January 14, 2021 11:42 am

but a warming trend for the last 20,000 years

fred250
Reply to  bob boder
January 14, 2021 12:38 pm

Thank Goodness ! 🙂

I don’t think human civilisation would cope too well with a full-on Ice Age. !

Even Little Ice Ages, like only a few hundred years ago, caused real problems of survival in many places.

paul courtney
Reply to  TonyG
January 14, 2021 12:15 pm

TonyG: We can’t tell, because 4.5bya, bristlecone pine trees were incinerated, so we have no ring data from the beginning.

TonyG
Reply to  paul courtney
January 14, 2021 3:40 pm

No worries, Paul, we can make it up!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TonyG
January 14, 2021 12:45 pm

I think that many here have forgotten what they learned in their calculus classes about slope and rates of change. Once again, if the choice of dates is explained and justified in terms of what is trying to be illustrated, then it is valid and not cherry picking.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 12:41 pm

If you want to see a great example of cherry picking look up the Environment Canada Report on climate change.
They conveniently start in 1948 (cool period) ignore the warm 1930’s and 1940’s and say we are warming 2 to 3 times as fast as the rest of the world. They use the excuse that there is not much data before 1950. But when they feel like it they will go back before 1900 and show how much we have warmed ignoring the fact that over most of the world and oceans at that time there were no observations and they were “made up”.

Tom
Reply to  Bellman
January 15, 2021 5:05 am

To me, “Cherry Picking” is hiding the method that was used to select the data. Another word for “hiding” is deceiving”. Whey you inform the reader, up front, of your method of picking the data, it’s hardly Cherry Picking. The reader may agree or disagree with the method, but he is fully informed.

commieBob
Reply to  QQBoss
January 14, 2021 7:58 am

Cherry picking is anything that disproves the commenter’s chosen narrative.

Walter Horsting
Reply to  QQBoss
January 14, 2021 8:27 am

A big cherry pick is starting records around 1850 and not the beginning of the Little Ice Age. Or sea levels from then vs. the High Stand of the Holocene.

fred250
Reply to  Walter Horsting
January 14, 2021 11:13 am

Or starting Arctic Sea Ice at the extreme high of the 1970s.

Cherry-picking is what the AGW farce is all about

ih_fan
Reply to  QQBoss
January 14, 2021 10:58 am

This is an example of cherry picking data: https://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/fruits/cherries

Reply to  QQBoss
January 14, 2021 12:20 pm

1995 is a better starting point since it serves as an ENSO neutral year prior to the 1998 major El Nino. On that basis, the UAH record shows the monthly anomaly returning to the mean as of December 2020

UAH Global since 1995.png
fred250
Reply to  Ron Clutz
January 14, 2021 2:47 pm

Will really be fun to watch the desperation of the AGW apologists as the UAH value continues to fall over the next few months. 🙂

barry
Reply to  Ron Clutz
January 16, 2021 4:33 pm

You get a positive trend of 0.125 C/decade (+/-0.111) for that period.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1995/plot/uah6/from:1995/trend

See - Owe to Rich
January 14, 2021 6:28 am

Certainly the UK is getting a colder winter this year, but nothing so far to compare with December 2010.

Rich.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  See - Owe to Rich
January 14, 2021 7:33 am

Or 1962/3 or 1947

Reply to  See - Owe to Rich
January 14, 2021 8:33 am

Whenever the earth cools slightly, we seem to get nice warm winters here in Calgary.

TRM
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
January 15, 2021 6:57 pm

Is it a warmer due to more chinooks? They get about 6-8 a year on average if I remember and it makes a huge difference.

Reply to  See - Owe to Rich
January 14, 2021 10:16 am

It’s not over yet

Robert W Turner
January 14, 2021 6:36 am

Too bad we’re in the post truth world now. Global temperatures could plummet 3 degrees and The Party would claim that man made climate change is now cooling the planet. We’re seriously to the point where they knowingly flaunt the propaganda in our faces, tormenting those that are sharper than a marble while relying on their useful idiots NPCs Storm Troopers to enforce the lies.

Last edited 6 months ago by Robert W Turner
Steen Rasmussen
Reply to  Robert W Turner
January 14, 2021 7:25 am

All the fake news in politics will now stamp critical climate science as also being conspiracy and maybe also close all critical climate discussions on social media as well. I see now clearly the urgence from all of the AGW claiming people and organizations to reduce man made CO2, because in a couple of years we might find that the warming has all stopped despite CO2 still rising. But if they succeed to lower man made CO2, they will claim that it was the reason behind the temperature fall. The AGW theory has in my opinion been falsified so many times, that we can put away. There is still so much to be learned in climate science, so hopefully we will return to a world without political driven “science”.
I believe we should investigate water vapor and our big 70% seawater surface as the main regulator of the climate of the Earth hopefully based on empiric data and not failed models.
It does not mean however, that we should give all up our environmental efforts, but we still need lots of energy to clean the world and to investigate in more clean ways to produce energy.
Thank ypu sir Monckton for sharing this info, it seems to be close to your calculation for a couple of years ago, where you estimated the Charny sensitivity to be 1.24C.
Kind regards
SteenR

Reply to  Robert W Turner
January 14, 2021 7:47 am

Oh, no, they will tell us, it’s lockdowns positve effect, that’s why we have to stay in lockdownn status to protect our climate (from cooling, warmig, what ever is needed).
Not that they didn’t announce it 😀

Bruce Ranta
Reply to  Robert W Turner
January 14, 2021 10:52 am

I was watching The Weather Network while cleaning a lake trout I caught ice-fishing yesterday and the re-played a segment they have been showing of late on the imminent extinction of polar bears because of the melting arctic ice cap. No mention of the fact polar bear populations have been steadily increasing for decades now and no mention that the Hudson Bay polar bears are also doing fine, despite the fact the ice of Hudson Bay melts away completely each summer. And finally, the insinuation seems to be that winter won’t see the sea ice return, and if the Arctic ice does melt away completely, it will only be for a couple of weeks, before winter returns and it re-freezes. Such BS and never any counter arguments presented.

Bellman
January 14, 2021 6:47 am

That is equivalent to a not particularly terrifying centennial warming rate of 1.25 C° over the 19 years covering the two pauses and the warming in between.

Which is very close to the long term trend over the entire history of UAH. So no evidence of anything unusual happening during these alleged “pauses”.

As always you can find any meaningless trend over a short period of noisy data. You could just as easily highlight that since the start of 2011, warming has been at the rate of over 5°C / century.

Or that whilst the trend has been negative for “5 years and 4 months”, it’s been rising at over 1.5°C / century for 5 years and 11 months.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 6:53 am

So what? Take a longer interval, for example, since 1000, and there is a clear cooling trend. Your argument is pointless.

Bellman
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 14, 2021 7:07 am

Difficult to find 1000 years of satellite data. But my point was simply to point out the pointlessness of looking at a short time span and claiming it’s a “pause”.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 7:10 am

According to the CAGW dogma, we should be observing a monotonic increase in global temperatures. This is clearly not happening.

Bellman
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 14, 2021 7:22 am

Really? Could you point me to any prediction that there will be a monotonic increase in global temperatures? Everything I’ve read on the matter says that there will be year to year variations in temperature.

Editor
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 9:14 am

The standard reply, it is silly since CO2 is a postulated warm forcing gas and MUST show at least a .20C per decade warming to be credible, it hasn’t.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 14, 2021 11:19 am

That would be the case in a climate influenced exclusively by CO2, but since there are multiple influences on the climate across many timescales, there is no expected monotonic temperature increase expected with increasing CO2 emissions. Not a single climate model projects such a pattern.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 1:06 pm

Misdirection. All of the UN IPCC climate models show annual warming absent some arbitrary (random?) insertion of ENSO, volcanos, etc.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 14, 2021 1:12 pm

Right, so there’s the long term “signal” overlaid by short term variability – that’s what the models show, that’s what the physics show. Nobody is claiming that there should be a monotonic year over year temperature increase.

Derg
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 3:34 pm

Lol…whoosh and then one day they will not know what snow is in England 😉

fred250
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 14, 2021 11:21 am

Warming has, in fact , ONLY occurred at strong El ninos

Between those strong El Ninos, there is no warming.

CO2 does NOT cause ocean warming, so here is NO EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2 in the satellite temperature series.

Bellman
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 14, 2021 4:36 pm

Which has nothing to do with the claim that it has to be increasing monotonically. Even if temperatures where warming at the rate of 0.02°C per year, the yearly variance is still going to be much greater than that. Hence some years would be colder than the previous year.

Doonman
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 10:19 am

So, everything you’ve read says increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere may or may not be the governing forcing that controls the earths global average temperature depending on when you start looking? Strange, I’ve never heard that assertion before.

Bellman
Reply to  Doonman
January 14, 2021 4:37 pm

In the long term, not year to year.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 11:18 am

Ah so YOU AGREE that Human isn’t the cause of the current warming, and that other causes easily overcome any actual CO2 warming.

Well done Bellhop.. !

Causes like strong series of solar maxima, less tropical cloud cover etc etc..

Maybe you ARE capable of learning.

nah ….. not going to happen.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 1:00 pm

Year-to-year variations are very different from zero-warming trends for 19 or even 5 years! All the models give smooth increases resulting from CO2, unless they explicitly take into account hypothetical volcanic eruptions. However, the volcanic eruptions typically only halt warming for a couple of years, not 19!

barry
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 16, 2021 7:12 pm

All the models give smooth increases resulting from CO2″

That’s not true. Here is a multimodel ensemble from IPCC AR4.
comment image

The 21 model runs in that graphic (Chapter 10, fig 10.5) certainly don’t show a smooth increase. Even this isn’t the annual results, but instead is a 3-point smooth on annual temp values, so the annual results would have even more variability.

Here are annual results from AR5.

https://tinyurl.com/y6nemvy3

barry
Reply to  barry
January 16, 2021 9:46 pm

Here’s an even better representation with clear annual scale of individual model runs:
comment image

The model mean, of course, will always look smooth, but individual model runs do not progress smoothly. They show the same kind of variability as the historical record, with occasional periods of decadal cooling, but overall warming.

Last edited 6 months ago by barry
MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 8:08 am

Now that is cherry picking. Only selecting the data that shows the trend you wish to prove.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 8:17 am

Exactly.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 9:30 am

Which is what you do, and is not what Monckton has done.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 9:54 am

Indeed, MarkW. But as you rightly point out elsewhere, Bellman’s purpose here isn’t for understanding, it’s for distraction.

Last edited 6 months ago by John Endicott
nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 9:55 am

Well, you very succintly summarized what Monckton has done.

John Endicott
Reply to  nyolci
January 14, 2021 11:26 am

No, he summerized what you and your fellow travallers do but only project onto Lord M.

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
January 14, 2021 11:54 am

Despite there being lots more relevant posts, nyolci choose to respond to mine.

Do you think I’ve picked up a stalker?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 1:09 pm

MarkW
I suspect that your singular negative vote came from your ‘secret admirer.’

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 15, 2021 5:09 am

Despite there being lots more relevant posts, nyolci choose to respond to mine.

Consider it a badge of honor 🙂 Yours is a beautiful example when a denier kicks his own ass. It’s like the “type site” in archeology, the place a culture is named after. We may call it the “MarkW flop”. Back to business. Monckton fought hard to get an endpoint that resulted in an interval of negative trend. Bellman demonstrated it with a simple calculation. Any other endpoint would’ve showed a positive trend for the simple reason of 2020 being the second warmest year in the instrumental record.

Last edited 6 months ago by nyolci
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  nyolci
January 15, 2021 2:48 pm

In response to the deeply prejudiced “nyholci”, I merely asked a question: for how long has there been a zero trend in global warming. The answer, like it or not, is 5 years 4 months.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
January 15, 2021 1:38 pm

You whiney hypocrite.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 14, 2021 11:29 am

The d’nyholist raised its unworthy head.

Should have known you would “lack understanding” of the mathematical process.

It is NOT what Monckton has done

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 14, 2021 11:53 am

Once again, nyolci jumps in to proudly display how he has no idea what he’s talking about.

You alarmists really get your panties in a wad whenever it is pointed out that the science and the data, don’t support your religion.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 15, 2021 11:10 am

whenever it is pointed out that the science and the data

Look, who is talking 🙂 You’re defending the extremely valuable contribution to climate science of a British aristocretin with degrees in Classics and Journalism. This must be science!

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  nyolci
January 15, 2021 2:50 pm

If the profoundly prejudiced nyolci, who resorts too readily to hate speech, knew any science at all it would realize that the answer to the question “For how long has there been a zero trend in global warming?” is “5 years 4 months”. I have a substantial record of peer-reviewed publications in climate science and economics, and am perfectly capable of calculating a least-squares linear-regression trend, which seems to be more than “nyolci” can manage, or it would have realized that the head posting is correct.

nyolci
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 17, 2021 8:39 am

“For how long has there been a zero trend in global warming?” is “5 years 4 months”.

Well, My Dearest Lord, this is not a trend, and I’m sure you know that too as a climate scientist. A trend won’t go away if you play around a bit with the endpoints.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 1:02 pm

Then explain to me exactly how my method differed from Monckton’s. I think I know what Monckton’s method is, I used to get the same results as him during the first Great Pause, and I get the same results as him this time, but maybe I’m completely wrong and there’s a more mathematically valid method he’s using. If someone could tell me what it is, I could test it and see if we get the same results.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 2:49 pm

Explaining to a mathematically inept muppet like you, is seemingly impossible.

Conprehension is NOT your strong point.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 2:53 pm

What you are implying is that the warming (caused by the 2015/16 and 1998 El Nino) has now leveled off.

We all agree with that, so what is your problem.?

Those El Nino events really are a problem for the AGW blatherers, because they HAVE to use them to show any warming.

But in doing so , they show that the warming is NOT caused by human released CO2

So sad. ! 🙂

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 14, 2021 4:49 pm

Well, my first problem would be why you expect an El Niño event to level off. Any unexpected warming should return to the base level rather than leveling off.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 4:56 pm

ROFLMAO..

You have MANY problems before even getting near your “first” problem. !

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 14, 2021 5:35 pm

Well yes, but I meant my first problem in relation to your post. I wasn’t going to go into personal problems. Still nice deflection from answering the question.

nyolci
Reply to  Bellman
January 15, 2021 11:14 am

in relation to your post

I just disregard this fred guy, he is the Resident Noise Generator here. He’s so stupid even hard core deniers don’t take him seriously.

John Endicott
Reply to  nyolci
January 16, 2021 12:10 pm

Don’t worry nyolci, he’s not taking your job.

nyolci
Reply to  John Endicott
January 17, 2021 8:41 am

Don’t worry nyolci

I’m trembling with fear…

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 21, 2021 1:33 am

Yep, d’nyholist….

FEAR because you KNOW you have NO EVIDENCE. of anything.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 11:25 am

“pointlessness of looking at a short time span”

You mean the POINTLESSNESS of looking at a short time span out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, and trying to blame it on human CO2..

… when current temperatures haven’t even climbed to those of the MWP yet ?

… and are well short of nearly all the last 10,000 years.?

Agreeing that the AGW scam is POINTLESS……

well done Bellhop !!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 12:54 pm

If you didn’t get paid for a month or two, would you consider it pointless to complain because it was only short term? Context is very important!

The existence of pauses in warming tells us something about how the warming is occurring. Strangely, the alarmists try to dismiss it as being unimportant rather than trying to understand the implications.

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 14, 2021 4:55 pm

Yes, they show something. It’s just what they tell me is that the data is variable. If all years were exactly on the trend line, we would see a monotonically increase year on year. But in reality some years are warmer than the trend, some colder. And what all these endless debates tell me is some people are determined to stick a trend line just before some hot years and claim the resulting flat line means something.

I’m quite prepared to consider that a pause or whatever, actually means something else, but first I’d like to see some serious evidence that it is anything other than a statistical fluctuation.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
January 15, 2021 2:55 pm

Bellman continues to deny the obvious: that, even according to official climatology, which profiteers by this scam, it is admitted that a Pause of 15 years or longer indicates that the models’ predictions were and are simply excessive.

I watched the previous Pause lengthen from the 7 years when I appeared before Congress and discomfited the “Democrats” by pointing it out. It eventually became 18 years 9 months (HadCRUT) or 18 years 8 months (UAH), substantially in excess of the 15-year threshold for significant departure from the models’ predictions.

Now another Pause is underway. I do not yet know how long it will persist, but I shall keep an eye on it and, if it continues, I shall continue to report the fact of it. One realizes how distressing this is to climate Communists, who had been told there would be warming equivalent to 3.4 C/century in the medium term, when in fact there has been less than half that. But there it is: the data are the data, and the trends are the trends, and the trends are not alarming trends.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 16, 2021 6:02 am

I watched the previous Pause lengthen from the 7 years when I appeared before Congress and discomfited the “Democrats” by pointing it out.

No, you said there were seven years of significant global cooling, not a pause. And that was based on an average of 4 datasets, not cherry-picking the slowest rising data. The fact that we went from significant cooling to not warming, to not warming as fast as as some may have predicted should say something to you about the value of cherry picking short term trends in order to “discomfort” your political opponents.

You were also at that time saying that using a 25 year trend was a dishonest abuse of statistics, finding false trends by careful selection of startpoints.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 11:15 am

Yes, we KNOW that satellit data starts pretty close to the end of the Global COOLING scare of the 1970s, that was expounded by SO MANY of the AGW stall warts.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
January 14, 2021 11:31 pm

Bellhop, as always, fails to read the head posting. The context therein described is clear enough: we are about to go formally into la Nina conditions, which will probably persist for another four or five months. On past form, those conditions will produce – and are already producing – some correction following the large El Nino of 2016 onwards. Therefore, there is a possibility that the present Pause will lengthen. The longer it becomes, the more significant it becomes.

The truth is that IPCC in 1990 predicted medium-term warming equivalent to 3.4 K/century, a rate more than double the rate in the subsequent three decades. As the second part of the head posting explains, there is a reason for this disastrous discrepancy between failed prediction and sober reality: climatology has made the elementary error of assuming that all of the preindustrial feedback response was attributable to greenhouse forcings and none to emission temperature itself, leading to the wholly false expectation that equilibrium sensitivity would be three or four times reference sensitivity when in reality there is very little difference between the two.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
January 15, 2021 2:46 pm

Bellman continues wilfully to misunderstand the head posting. He bemoans the fact that there has been no warming for 5 years 4 months, and then, when the head posting is drawn to his attention and he realizes that I had also shown the trend for the 19 years covering both Pauses, he whines that 1.25 C/century equivalent is not unusual. And that, of course, is the skeptics’ point: The warming trend all the way back to 1979 is less than 1.5 C/century equivalent. But the models had confidently predicted 3.4 C/century equivalent. And the anthropogenic radiative forcing has increased very considerably since 30 years ago, when IPCC made that confident prediction: and yet global warming, far from accelerating, has gently but persistently slowed. Any observer interested in the truth rather than the mere Party Line would be interested to see that the anthropogenic radiative forcing increases and yet the global-warming trend is so very much less than originally predicted. One indication of that slowing – like it or not – is that there are likely to be long Pauses.

TRM
January 14, 2021 6:50 am

Mr Monckton, Welcome back. It’s been a while. I hope you and yours are doing well.


Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  TRM
January 14, 2021 3:37 pm

It’s a pleasure to be back. I saw Roy Spencer’s post showing that the currently-building la Nina had caused temperature to drop, and I thought I’d see whether there was a Pause and, if so, how long it was.

The unspeakable BBC has just reported that 2020 was the hottest year evaah!!! Yet there has been no global warming for more than five years, a piece of relevant context that the Beebolshies were very careful not to provide.

TonyL
January 14, 2021 7:04 am

The Great Pause, back again?
Here are a few things to watch for as the la nina develops.

1) the “pause plateau” now at 0.3 deg. will incrementally drop as the temperature falls.
2) The start month of the pause will shift to earlier months, so the pause will lengthen at both ends.

We have not had anything like a real declining trend in the UAH data for a long time. It will be interesting to see if the current conditions finally force a declining trend, and if so, how long it lasts.
When the “Great Pause” was the big story, every month the UAH data was greeted with much fanfare, and people would eagerly recalculate the new Pause length. It was all good fun Then one commenter pointed out that the trends in the UAH data develop on a time frame of years to decades. It might be a bit silly to get all excited about it every single month. {What a spoilsport.}

Bob Hoye
Reply to  TonyL
January 14, 2021 7:25 am

It’s like the financial markets.
A significant reversal starts with a small step.
And when one is interested such reversals are fascinating.
And worth monitoring.
For the change from El Nino to La Nina, as well.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  TonyL
January 14, 2021 3:39 pm

I suspect that TonyL’s prediction of a Pause lengthening at both ends as we go into the la Nina may well sound. But one should not underestimate the value of pointing out Pauses when they occur, because they are the reason why we are not getting anything like the warming rate originally predicted by the usual suspects.

Richard M
Reply to  TonyL
January 14, 2021 4:49 pm

When the “Great Pause” was the big story, every month the UAH data was greeted with much fanfare

Most of the pause articles used RSS data instead of UAH. But, your point is still valid.

What would be truly interesting is for the new pause to absorb the old pause. Not likely any time soon. Would probably require a multi-year La Nina with no follow on El Nino. Still, it could happen some day and the pause would suddenly go back to 1997 again.

January 14, 2021 7:20 am

Did Lord Monckton have his paper accepted by any scientific publication? After all these years, I have still not seen any simple understandable explanation how CO2 supposedly blocks some heat from being emitted from earth to space but does not block an equal or greater amount of heat from reaching earth….this sort of one way valve operation?

Reply to  T. C. Clark
January 14, 2021 7:51 am

Here is the respective open peer review… 😀

Reply to  T. C. Clark
January 14, 2021 8:04 am

Actually that bit works. UV and visible light punches through the CO2 and hits the earth, it’s the long wave IR radiation from the earth at night that is ‘reflected’.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 14, 2021 10:55 am

What’s generally ignored is how much near IR directly from the sun that water vapor absorbs on the way down.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 14, 2021 1:19 pm

I agree that it seems to be ignored, but solar thermal IR is on the tail of the solar spectrum and is a fraction of the energy of the main visible light.

solar_radiation_spectrum[1].jpg
Last edited 6 months ago by Clyde Spencer
Peta of Newark
Reply to  T. C. Clark
January 14, 2021 8:06 am

Quote:
“”Seventeen years later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs12 plotted by Hottel. However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K) of temperature and 0.6096 atm cm of partial pressure.
Hottel’s and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.””

From here: https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/04/determining-the-total-emissivity-of-a-mixture-of-gases-containing-overlapping-absorption-bands/

Taking the atmosphere average tempeture to be minus 15 Celsius, where does Monkton get 3.5 watts/sqm?
Even worse, the atmosphere is always colder than the surface below where ever you are.
Cold Objects Do Not Radiatively Force Warm Objects

Even worser, if, IF, the atmosphere actually is radiating extra downwards, why is it not radiating the same amount upwards. And Greenhouse Theory says it is
BUT IF it is, everywhere upwards of where the radiation is coming from is colder and thus the radiation is absorbed. Even if it has to travel for 13 Billion years
Thus cooling

Even more worser than a really worser thing = The OCO2 Sputnik.
And this is worse. No kidding. Seriously serious no kidding

OCO2 doesn’t work by looking for the Green House Radiation coming from CO2.
It cannot. CO2 does not radiate at temperatures less than 33 Celsius
Oooooh. wonder if that’s why Monkton uses a Projected Figure?

But what OCO does look for, is solar energy being absorbed by CO2 as it does a round trip from ‘space’, is reflected off water (ideally) and returns to space.
But hang on, doesn’t the water absorb all the solar energy?

What? This is insane. Water has lower Albedo that land. Everybody knows that
Warmists. Comment please….

No matter. Some obviously bounces.
(Maybe that’s why polarised shades are so useful on visits to the seaside. Strange indeed.
Ha. there’s lockdown explained!)
At wavelengths corresponding to temperatures of 400 Celsius and 800 Celsius

The alert and Stefan-Savvy reader will notice that they are warmer than Earth and thus would be absorbed, causing a heating effect on the land and ocean.
But, according to NASA OCO2, they don’t even make it to the friggin ground – big thanks, hugs and kisses to the ever benevolent Carbon Oxide

we are in a new dark age
(mmmmm – wonders how many there have been before. are they like Ice Ages)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  T. C. Clark
January 14, 2021 1:15 pm

In short, yes! The major amount of energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere from the very hot sun is at wavelengths that are minimally absorbed. However, the energy radiated from a slightly warm Earth is at wavelengths that are strongly absorbed by absorption features in waver vapor and CO2.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  T. C. Clark
January 14, 2021 3:45 pm

In response to Mr Clark, our last two submissions were rejected, but the reviewers were unable to find anything of substance wrong with our central points: a) that expectations of a large feedback response had been elevated by climatology’s absurd calculation that 8 K of direct preindustrial greenhouse warming drove 24 K of feedback response, when most of the preindustrial feedback response was response to emission temperature; and b) that, as explained in the head posting, midrange observational data show that equilibrium climate sensitivity – like the medium-term warming rate to date – is about a third of official climatology’s midrange prediction, ending the climate “emergency”.

A third journal is now looking at our paper, and has spent months raising footling objections (paper too long, so we shortened it; references not arranged numerically, when the journal’s own instructions for authors require them to be arranged alphabetically; a reference not verifiable, because the journal concerned did not use the automated doi system, etc., etc.). We have dealt with all these trivialities, and one of our co-authors has commented that in 30 years of having papers published he has never been treated in this petty fashion before. Looks as though They are hurting a little. Well, now They will have to give us a proper peer review: otherwise, the whole file of how reviewers have been treating us will go to the police, whose interest has already been aroused.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 15, 2021 8:59 am

Sounds just like courts in the U.S. when confronted with election lawsuits:

“Run Away!”

(with apologies to Sir Robin)

dh-mtl
January 14, 2021 7:31 am

‘Given the 3.5 W m–2 radiative forcing ΔQ3 equivalent to a doubling of CO2 …….. midrange ECS – currently imagined to be 3.7 C°).’

According to the earth’s energy budget in Wikipedia (Dec 29, 2020), evaporative cooling is approximately 85 W m–2.

Assuming that, as temperature rises, this evaporative cooling would increase roughly in proportion to the vapor pressure of water i.e. to maintain the same relative humidity, a 3.7 C increase in temperature would result in an increase in evaporative cooling of roughly 30 W m–2, i.e. an order of magnitude larger than the radiative forcing.

Good luck with Global Warming!

fred250
Reply to  dh-mtl
January 14, 2021 11:31 am

Well said. 🙂

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  dh-mtl
January 14, 2021 1:23 pm

It is a little amazing how well-regulated the whole system seems to be.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  dh-mtl
January 14, 2021 11:19 pm

dh-mtl makes a good point about evaporative cooling, and one which has been demonstrated in the data by my distinguished friend Willis Eschenbach. I do wish he’d publish a paper on it. That cooling, and the consequent earlier tropical afternoon convection with warming, operates as a substantial negative feedback, assisting in offsetting the positive feedbacks. It is one of the physical mechanisms that demonstrate the theoretical point that feedback response is far smaller than official climatology imagines it to be.

E. Schaffer
Reply to  dh-mtl
January 15, 2021 3:41 pm

Right, without vapor the lapse rate would be about 10.8K. It is about 1K higher than the adiabatic lapse rate, since the atmosphere is naturally unstable, meaning the it gets heated at the surface. But due to vapor the wet lapse rate is only 6.5K, or 4.3K less per 1.000m.

So while vapor is raising the emission level and thus working as a GHG, it simultaniously works like a heat sink, transporting heat from the surface to the emission layer, where it then get de-radiated into space. These two components largely cancel each other out so that vapor is hardly a GHG at all.

dh-mtl
Reply to  E. Schaffer
January 16, 2021 9:49 am

In general you may be correct, that the two components cancel each other out.

But as the temperature increases, the cooling effect of water vapor increases exponentially, while the GHG effect does not. So, while at lower temperatures the effect of water vapor may be a net positive feedback, as the temperatures increase water vapor becomes an increasingly negative feed-back. That is why oceans never increase much above 30 C.

January 14, 2021 8:09 am

Why is the climate sensitivity so hard to determine? It should be absolutely obvious that no one Joule is any more powerful at maintaiing surface warmth then any other. This being the case, each of the 240 W/m^2 of captured solar energy MUST contribute equally to the 390 W/m^2 of average emissions by the surface where each W/m^2 of solar forcing results in 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions. In other words, the surface must emit 1.62 W/m^2 in order for 1 W/m^2 to leave TOA to offset 1 W/m^2 arriving from the Sun. The linear relationship between W/m^2 of solar input and W/m^2 of surface emissions is easily tested and the data shows it to be unambiguously true.

Increasing the 390 W/m^2 of average surface emissions by 1.62 W/m^2 will happen when the average temperature increases by about 0.3C. Anyone who claims a sensitivity factor of more then 0.3C per W/m^2 (or an alpha < 3.3 W/m^2 per degree) is blatently violating COE by claiming that the next Joule is far more powerful than the average Joule at maintaining surface warmth. The linear relationship between stored Joules and the temperature is irrelevant, as the temperature has already changed and only the only steady state work required is to offset the T^4 emissions from the changed temperature and of course, Joules are the units of work.

The ignorant claim by alarmists is that massive positive feedback amplifies the next W/m^2, so the question this raises is how can the climate system tell the next W/m^2 from the average W/m^2 so that feedback only applies to the next one. Despite the horribly flawed application of Bode’s linear feedback amplifier analysis to the climate, feedback can’t tell Joules apart either!

E. Schaffer
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 14, 2021 11:01 am

Surface emissions are not 390W/m2, since emissivity is only ~0.94. 366W/m2 is a more accurate figure. Btw. since both emissivity and absorptivity of the surface itself are basically identical, the surface with given insolation would take on a temperature of (342 * (x/x) /5.67e-8)^0.25 = 278.7K. The atmosphere effect (or GHE) has only a size of ~10K.

Reply to  E. Schaffer
January 14, 2021 4:43 pm

The attribute of the planet that seems most stabilized by some kind of emergent control system is the emissivity of the planet at TOA relative to the surface temperature. To the extent that you consider the surface emissivity to be 0.92, then the real temperature of the radiating surface itself must be higher, since the radiant average temperature reported for the surface is typically considered as the equivalent temperature of its average emissions assuming an emissivity of 1. In principle, most of the contribution to a non unit emissivity is from the atmosphere between the surface and space.

A more accepted average temperature is about 288K whose ideal SB emissions are about 390 W/m^2. These are attenuated to about 62% of their original value once the energy reaches TOA. Whatever the split is in the contribution to the emissivity from the near surface and the atmosphere up to TOA doesn’t really matter. The final equivalent emissivity is what’s important to the radiant balance.

Dave Fair
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 14, 2021 1:15 pm

I like Joules; more Joules means women expose more skin. Of course, jewels work the same.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 14, 2021 11:17 pm

In response to CO2isnotevil, using surface values of both temperature and radiative flux density and had taken the differential, 288 K / (4 x 240 W/m^2) yields the Planck parameter 0.3 K/W/m^2 mentioned by CO2isnotevil. However, that is before taking account of any feedback processes that might alter the temperature gradient between the surface and the top of the atmosphere.

Therefore, the direct warming from the 3.5 W/m^2 doubled-CO2 forcing is about 1.05 K. However, feedbacks will raise that reference sensitivity by a little (not, as official climatology foolishly imagines, by a lot). To demonstrate this, remove all greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Then the albedo halves to about 0.15, whereupon temperature at the emission altitude (which, without greenhouse gases, is the surface) becomes 267.6 K. Using midrange estimates of preindustrial forcing – about 40 W/m^2 – and the emission-temperature Planck parameter 267.6 / (4 x 240), the directly-forced preindustrial reference sensitivity was about 11 K. Yet the total natural greenhouse effect, the difference between emission surface temperature and the surface temperature in 1850, was 20 K. The 9 K difference is feedback response.

Most of that feedback response is, of course, feedback response to emission temperature itself. However, climatology, not realizing that there is a feedback response to the input signal as well as to any perturbation thereof, attributes all of the preindustrial feedback response solely to the presence of the noncondensing greenhouse gases, which is why it imagines so very large a feedback response to greenhouse warming today.

One can see how official climatology screwed up. It argued (see e.g. Lacis et al. 2010, one of many papers where the error is explicitly stated) that without the noncondensers the world would be entirely or almost entirely ice-covered, whereupon no feedbacks would operate. It is only when one adds the noncondensers that the temperature rises enough to melt the ice and allow the feedbacks to operate. Therefore, climatology imagines that greenhouse gases are the control knob of the climate. However, in truth the feedbacks required both emission temperature and the preindustrial noncondensers in order to produce feedbacks, so one must allocate a substantial fraction of the total preindustrial feedback response to emission temperature, leaving only a minuscule fraction of it attributable to the greenhouse gases.

The back-of-the-envelope calculation in the head posting uses mainstream observational data and estimates of anthropogenic forcing to calculate equilibrium climate sensitivity in today’s conditions. Sure enough, the true ECS is about 1.2 K, just a little above the 1.05 K that would obtain if there were no feedbacks at all. End of climate “emergency”.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 15, 2021 8:32 pm

Yes, there is no doubt that climatology is very screwed up about the ECS, feedback and just about everything else. It’s worse then we think.

The fundamental problem is that the effects of feedback are over emphasized while the linear feedback amplifier analysis applied to the climate in order to justify amplification by positive feedback was misapplied in 3 ways, each of which is sufficient to invalidate the application of the analysis to the climate system.

The first precondition for applying Bode’s analysis is the existence of an implicit power supply. This can’t be the average forcing not accounted for by the incremental analysis, since this energy is already completely consumed maintaining the average temperature which is also not accounted for. There’s simply no possible source of energy to add to the next W/m^2 of forcing in order to offset the 4.4 W/m^2 (0.8C) claimed by the IPCC, massive positive feedback or not. The incorrectly assumed implicit power supply is where the fake power comes from.

The second ignored precondition is that feedback analysis can only be applied to absolutely linear systems. There’s no relevant relationship where W/m^2 of input are linear to degrees of output and approximate linearity around the mean is wildly insufficient. In the steady state, only the T^4 dependence on W/m^2 matters. The 0.3C per W/m^2 sensitivity can be derived as the derivative of the Stefan-Boltzmann Laws, dT/dE = 1/(4eoT^3), where T is the average surface temperature, o is the SB constant and e is the effective emissivity of about 0.62 which is the ratio between the emissions at TOA and the surface emissions. It just so happens that this is about the same sensitivity as an ideal BB at 255K with unit emissivity and leads to confusion about what the ‘pre feedback’ sensitivity really is. The only proper quantification of a pre feedback sensitivity would be that of an ideal BB which is 1 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing, which corresponds to a bit less than 0.2C per W/m^2 when starting from 288K.

The third error is more subtle and is that the feedback fraction, which is the fraction of the output returned to the input as feedback has been confused with the feedback factor, which is the feedback fraction times the open loop gain. Assuming the feedback factor, and not the feedback fraction, was the dimensionless ratio between -1 and 1 provided the illusion that the open loop gain could have dimensions as long as the feedback fraction had inverse dimensions. Based on the linearity precondition, the open loop gain, closed loop gain and the feedback fraction must all be dimensionless ratios, with no exceptions. An amplifier with W/m^2 in and degrees out all by itself invalidates applying the analysis.

nyolci
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 15, 2021 5:16 am

It should be absolutely obvious that no one Joule is any more powerful at maintaiing surface warmth then any other.

Yep, that’s why no scientist has ever claimed this.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  nyolci
January 15, 2021 2:59 pm

“nyolci” is, as ever, wrong. A string of papers by leading climate Communists asserts that the 40 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing that drove the 8 K direct warming by the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases engendered 24 K feedback response, but that the 240 Watts per square meter of radiative flux density that drove the 267 K emission temperature engendered no feedback response at all. And that’s a large and elementary error of control theory.

John Endicott
January 14, 2021 8:13 am

A new pause? If the temps drop far enough in the coming months/years, it could turn into a continuation of the old pause (barring any Karlization of the data to prevent that). Only time will tell.

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
January 14, 2021 9:33 am

Temps have already dropped a lot from the time when the current, weak, La Nina started.
If we get a moderate, or even a strong La Nina that lasts a year or so, this pause could easily connect up with the previous pause.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  MarkW
January 14, 2021 12:51 pm

If this pause connects with the last pause, would the combined effect over time then become a “pausitive” feedback loop?

John Endicott
Reply to  Beta Blocker
January 15, 2021 4:02 am

*groan* Well played Beta Blocker!

Editor
January 14, 2021 8:18 am

Thank you, Christopher.

Regards,
Bob

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 14, 2021 3:47 pm

Dear Bob, – It’s a pleasure.

E. Schaffer
January 14, 2021 8:28 am

1. The GHE is not 33K in size, but only ~10K! Text book physics is enough to figure this out. https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/27/plenty-of-physics-flaws-accumulate-into-a-huge-ghe-hoax-the-dark-secret-behind-surface-emissivity/
2. Clouds are warming, not cooling Earth. There is empiric evidence for it, but beyond that, there is the tricky question how “satellite data” (ERBE, CERES..) got it totally wrong. The problem is, you can not apply a logic of exclusion in a redundant system. If A causes X and B causes X as well, you could otherwise arbitrarily argue B was irrelevant with only A to “blame”, or vice verse. Clouds and GHGs share a large overlap in suppressing LW emissions. The formula LW CF=OLRc−OLR arbitrarily (and implicitly) attributes this overlap entirely to GHGs, and none to clouds. This is wrong and erroneously estimates a LW CR magnitudes too small. Here is the empiric part..
https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/11/austrian-analyst-things-with-greenhouse-effect-ghe-arent-adding-up-something-totally-wrong/
3. Ironically vapor is hardly a GHG at all and will neither work as positive “feedback”. To explain this as short and simple as possible: if vapor elevated the emission layer to 5,000m with an otherwise naturally unstable lapse rate of 10.8K/1.000m, that would provide a GHE of 54K. Now if we say vapor only covered a weighted 40% of the emission spectrum, that figure would drop to 21.6K. However due to vapor and the latent heat it transports from the surface into the troposphere, the wet lapse rate is only about 6.5K, thus reducing the “vapor GHE” to only 6.5 x 0.4 x 5 = 13K. The point now is, that the latent heat (sink) affects all the other GHGs and clouds as well, raising the temperature of their respective emission layers. If all other GHGs (or greenhouse factors) provided an emission level of 7.000m on average and covered another 40% of the emission spectrum, their GH-forcing would be reduced by (10.8 – 6.5) x 0.4 x 7 = 12.04K. The net effect of vapor (13-12.04) will be close to nothing.
4. A good share of the CO2 emission layer is already beyond the troposphere, partially reaching high up in the stratosphere. Any addition of CO2 there will not reduce emission temperature and not have a warming effect to the surface.
5. Not just do clouds warm the planet in general, but cirrus clouds are specifically effective in this regard. Mankind is providing massive amounts of artificial cirrus clouds (contrails) starting with the 1970s. The warming since then is consistent with the development of commercial air travel, both in time and place. Note: the Antarctic shows no warming trend at all, a region where there is essentially no air travel. Next to it, over the last decades, we see a number of contradicting developments. Natural cloud cover is reducing, the atmosphere is getting drier, temperatures go up, there is no “hot spot”, daily temperature spread is down, while pan evaporation is sinking! All this is perfectly explainable by an artificial cirrus cloud cover driving temperatures, while limiting the natural weather system below.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  E. Schaffer
January 14, 2021 3:48 pm

I agree with Schaffer that the natural greenhouse effect (i.e., the difference between emission temperature of 267.6 K and the 287.6 K global mean surface temperature in 1850) is only 12 K. In our paper we have done all the calculations based both on the usual 255 K estimate of emission temperature and the corrected value of 267.6 K based on halving today’s albedo because at emission temperature there would be no water vapor and hence no clouds.

E. Schaffer
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 14, 2021 8:17 pm

Sorry to correct you, but the difference between 267.6 and 287.6 is 20, not 12 ;). I know there have been suggestions to correct the clouds / no clouds issue in the classical GHE assumption, which dops the GHE to some 20K. But the problem is actually more profound, for reasons named in the article, so that the GHE is about 10K only.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  E. Schaffer
January 14, 2021 10:42 pm

Of course Mr Schaffer is correct: however, 8 K of the 20 K is directly-forced greenhouse warming, and I was thinking of the 12 K total preindustrial feedback response, most of which is in any event attributable to emission temperature, and not to the greenhouse gases. My bad.

dodgy geezer
January 14, 2021 8:37 am

As far as I can see we are in a strange world where any gathering of accurate data is suppressed, any interpretation of such data is required to fit political directives, and if an interpretation does not then:

a) a claim is made that that interpretation is refuted, and it is officially never discussed again.
b) the raw data is retrospectively altered to make that interpretation worthless.

Under these circumstances there is little point in making an argument from either data or first principles. There is little point in making any argument at all. Some other approach to the problem needs to be considered.

Dave Fair
Reply to  dodgy geezer
January 14, 2021 1:19 pm

The real approach? Costs to taxpayers and consumers.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  dodgy geezer
January 14, 2021 3:51 pm

In response to DodgyGeezer, my approach is straightforward. Pontius Pilate asked the question that underlies all true scientific curiosity: Quid est veritas? What is the truth?

The truth is that global warming has been and will continue to be one-third of what the climate fanatics have been predicting because they do not understand elementary control theory and have conflated the feedback responses to emission temperature and to the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases, attributing both responses solely to the latter.

Coeur de Lion
January 14, 2021 8:57 am

One notes that UAH shows 43 years at 1.4degC a century. Keep quite calm.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 14, 2021 9:52 am

I note the correlation with long warming cycles like AMO rolling over and down. So 43 years is not so long in that context. Get pumped!

MarkW
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 14, 2021 11:56 am

And that rate is unchanged from previous decades, going back to a point long before CO2 levels started rising significantly.

fred250
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 14, 2021 12:45 pm

And that warming comes in 2 distinct steps at the 1998 El Nino and the 2015/16 El Nino

Between those El Nino events, there is no warming.

Hence, there is ZERO evidence of any human causation in the slight atmospheric warming of the satellite era.

ResourceGuy
January 14, 2021 9:03 am

This time it’s different. The AMO is moving from cyclical topping to outright downswing, lagged and accretive solar cycle warming effects are lower, and Pacific and Arctic warming is in the history books and in space. All of these factors are hard and complicated factors for models and biased handlers, but surely the AMO change could be noticed first. That is unless noticing and investigating are out of favor in the enforcement phase of the Climate Crusades.

Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 9:05 am

Christopher,

a simple regression analysis shows that the trend for this period is not statistically significant:

comment image

How can you possibly make any conclusions about whether a “new pause” has started?

John Endicott
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 9:51 am

Hence the “?” at the end of “a new pause” in the post title. Do I need to explain to you what a “?” means Weekly_rise???

Last edited 6 months ago by John Endicott
Weekly_rise
Reply to  John Endicott
January 14, 2021 10:11 am

That’s fine and well, but why make a post about it at all? We don’t have any indication of a new pause starting. It also renders statements like this one completely wrong:

“As we come close to entering the la Niña, the trend in global mean surface temperature has already been zero for 5 years 4 months:”

We don’t know what the surface temperature trend has been between August 2015 and today, since the trend is not significant over this period.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 1:35 pm

No, we know what the calculated trend is, its just that you claim it isn’t statistically significant. It may, however prove to be so if someone else cares enough to check your calculations or if the trend continues into the future. It is still valuable to call attention to the fact that it at least appears to be a change.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 14, 2021 2:12 pm

You can calculate a linear trend line for any set of xy data, including series comprised of random noise. Whether the trend line you have calculated is likely representing some underlying signal in the data or merely the random variability (noise) depends on whether the trend is statistically significant.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 3:57 pm

WeeklyRise, like all climate fanatics, becomes agitated upon learning that there has been no global warming for more than five years. However, I expect the zero-warming trend to lengthen as the la Nina develops, and there will come a point, probably in midsummer, when it will be apparent to all that a reasonably significant Pause is yet again in progess. If so, that fact will have some influence on those who had hoped to see the world warming at the extreme rate that IPCC had originally predicted in 1990. Well, that is not going to happen, for the reasons set out in the second half of the head posting.

JCM
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 10:43 am

all the P value shows here is that the null hypothesis may be true true i.e. no trend. However, it is worth noting that the choice of statistical model matters, and that ordinary least squares on most climate data fails to meet the basic assumption of gaussian shape and absence of autocorrelation – therefore uncertainty cannot be determined.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  JCM
January 14, 2021 11:24 am

That is not what the p-value shows. The p-value shows the probability of finding the same trend line in a series comprised of random variability. The absence of a statistically significant trend does not indicate the presence of a statistically significant flat trend.

And you’ll have to take the issue of OLS up with Mr. Monckton, since it was his choice. I’m merely pointing out that the data don’t support the implications he is making.

TonyL
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 12:57 pm

“…..does not indicate the presence of a statistically significant flat trend.”

OK, now I see what you are driving at. If you mean a “flat trend” as slope == 0.0, then a statistically significant flat trend does not exist. It is a mathematical impossibility.
Consider:
the trend is a description of how the dependent variable (Y) changes as the independent variable (X) changes. For the case of the horizontal line, there is *no* change in Y as X changes. They are completely uncorrelated.
In this case the R value, the correlation coefficient is 0, and is 0 by definition.

A special case, try this at home:
Let us make a perfect straight line with a slope of 0, and a Y value of 1.
We will list {X,Y} values out like this:
{0,1}, {1,1}, {2,1}, {3,1}
Slope = 0.
Intercept = 1.
Correlation Coeff. = Divide By Zero math error!

While we are at it, a separate but related issue:
Consider a simple vertical line, here is the data:
{1,1}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {1,4}

Calculate the slope for us.
Write your answer here_____.
See?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  JCM
January 14, 2021 3:59 pm

In response to JCM, Prof. Jones of the “University” of East Anglia recommended using least-squares trends for temperature data. All I am doing is to use the method he recommended. It is a method also used by IPCC. If JCM doesn’t like it, he can of course use nth-order fits if he likes, but they will make little difference. His quarrel is with official climatology, not with me.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 12:36 pm

Amusingly, the trend since August, 2015, but the trend since January passes at the 10% level:

comment image

Monckton’s proposed “new pause” is actually more likely evidencing a continuation of the warming trend than it is signaling a new slowdown.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 3:27 pm

I wanted to take some time to think about your claim before responding in detail. I agree completely with JCM and TonyL. I’m left with the impression that you plugged numbers into a statistics package without really understanding what the results mean. You also claimed, “Whether the trend line you have calculated is likely representing some underlying signal in the data or merely the random variability (noise) depends on whether the trend is statistically significant.” That is overly simplistic.

Let me see if I can enlighten you. (I’m not going to check your calculations; I’m going to assume you did it correctly.) If OLS provides a linear fit, the ratio between the change in the independent variable and dependent variable is a function of the slope of the line; it varies between 0 and 1. That is, if the slope is about 45 deg, then a one-unit change in the independent variable results in a one-unit change in the dependent variable, ideally. The residuals, the difference between the actual data points and the calculated trend line, provide information about the variance in the dependent variable. Usually, the r^2 value is used to explain or predict how much of the variance in the dependent variable is the result of corresponding changes in the independent variable. Correlation (r) is therefore a function of both the slope of the regression line and the variance in the dependent variable.

The data you used means that there is virtually no correlation between the independent variable (time) and the dependent variable (temperature). In other words, it is meaningless to try to predict future temperatures based on the date. Basically, the small p-value means that because of the variance in the dependent variable, which is uncorrelated with the independent variable, there is no predictive value in the independent value, despite the trend line not being precisely zero. One is looking at random noise. One should only expect high p-values if the correlation coefficient is nearly 1.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 14, 2021 5:14 pm

When we identify a p-value lower than 0.05, we say that we have rejected the null hypothesis. There is only a 5% chance that the trend we identified might have resulted by chance. A p-value higher than 0.05, however, does not mean we have *proved* the null hypothesis. Does this make sense? Mr. Monckton has not showed that a pause has begun, he has showed that climate data are noisy on short timescales.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 7:29 pm

Let me guess. You are a graduate student or possibly even a newly-minted academic who ‘p-hacks’ for a living and everything looks to you like it requires p-values for justification or explanation.

I gave you more insight into what is involved in two-variable analysis and OLS and it either went right over your head or you just don’t want to see that there is more to understanding the analysis of variables than an associated p-value mechanically cranked out by a statistics package.

Climate data are are noisy on all time scales, not just short time scales. Might it be that we are looking at something like a run of heads in flipping a coin? Yes, but the hypotheses-testing p-value is not the right test to see the probability for or against a run of heads of a certain length.

If you read carefully, you will see that Christopher is speculating that the recent 5 years of no upward trend, along with a La Nina phase currently, may lead to another long hiatus that is long enough to be improbable by chance (noise) alone.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 15, 2021 5:06 am

There is currently no statistical evidence that we have entered another “hiatus” of the warming trend. That is my point. I do not think that speculating about future trends based on no evidence is a valuable exercise, much less using that speculation to validate estimates of climate sensitivity.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 18, 2021 4:06 pm

Weekly-Rise seems as nervous as several other true-believers here about the possibility of another long Pause in global warming. The head posting does not say that such a Pause will become established: merely that it may. Nor does it make any speculation about future trends based on either the past Pause (which was in the end statistically significant) or this one or both.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 18, 2021 4:25 pm

I am not contesting your freedom to speculate about future trends, I am responding to a specific claim that you made, which is that “there has been no global warming for more than five years.” This claim is not supported by the data you have presented.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 4:01 pm

WeeklyRise is wrong again. Reporting the trend on the data does not predict what will come next: all I have done is to point out that, using the linear-trend method favoured by official climatology, there has been no global warming for more than five years.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 15, 2021 7:02 am

Mathematicians, mathematicians. I am glad I am an engineer with a more disciplined view of physical phenomena. Statistics are not always the answer. Your eyes and brain are one of the best integrators ever designed. If your brain says I see no trend in this section of data, believe it and not all the statistical gyrations to show whether there is a predictable trend or not.

Let me also add from a lifetime of work in trying to forecast budgets and usage patterns of various telephone equipment. Trends are only good for the data you have. Trending into the future is fraught with uncertainty and unknowns. This is especially true in a coupled non-linear chaotic system like climate. It becomes more art than simple mathematic manipulation.

MB has stated that he expects a certain outcome based on a current trend of data and a continuation of a La Nina. This is the art part of making a prediction. Arguing about the number of angels on a pinhead based upon statistics is seeing the trees and not the forest!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 17, 2021 8:32 am

From the following site:
https://www.jmp.com/en_us/statistics-knowledge-portal/what-is-correlation/correlation-coefficient.html#404f1893-ae56-43ed-b84c-f6c99f313eca

“In the case of correlation analysis, the null hypothesis is typically that the observed relationship between the variables is the result of pure chance (i.e. the correlation coefficient is really zero — there is no linear relationship).”

“A low p-value would lead you to reject the null hypothesis. A typical threshold for rejection of the null hypothesis is a p-value of 0.05. That is, if you have a p-value less than 0.05, you would reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis—that the correlation coefficient is different from zero.”

You have a p-value almost twice the rejection threshold, therefore the null hypothesis — the correlation coefficient is really zero — should be accepted, which is the opposite of your initial claim.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 18, 2021 5:49 am

I agree with you that the trend since January 2015 is not statistically significant at the 95% level. I was just pointing out that it is a lot closer to achieving statistical significance than Monckton’s trend. In fact, if we wanted to identify a statistically significant trend, we need only jump back two more months, to November 2014:

comment image

This analysis reinforces my earlier point that the R^2 statistic cannot be used to evaluate statistical significance, it is merely an estimate of the variance explained by the regression model. Here we have a low R^2 value but a statistically significant trend (i.e. the data are noisy but now we’re looking at a long enough time span that the underlying trend is apparent against the noise).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 1:29 pm

Weekly_rise seems to be making an honest attempt at a mathematically-based critique. For those who gave a negative vote, how about explaining why you don’t approve? If you can’t, how about withholding votes in the future if the comment is above your pay grade? Just because you dislike what someone says, doesn’t mean that they are wrong.

Last edited 6 months ago by Clyde Spencer
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 15, 2021 7:31 am

Why. Because you can tell by examining with your eyes the data MB used and recognize there is no significant trend. As I said previously, it isn’t necessary to use statistics in every situation. Trying to always reduce EVERYTHING to a probability or statistical parameter is not necessary and a waste of time and resources.

I can put a dial gauge on a shaft and take numerous measurements and say that everything is fine. But, my ears will tell me that the rumble I hear is a predictor of a failing bearing. Your brain is a very good pattern recognition tool and when applying other confounding information along with wisdom can make very good predictions. Don’t be too quick to jump into esoteric mathematical gyrations in order to prove a simple thing.

Lets not forget who criticized MB initially for not using statistics to prove his point beyond a reasonable doubt.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 3:54 pm

In response to WeeklyRise, a trend is only significant if there is one. A zero trend is less than insignificant. That is why the R-squared value on the zero-trend graph is zero. It is always zero when the trend is zero. So there’s not much point in applying a p-value.

The truth is that Prof. Jones, who used to keep the HadCRUT data, said the simplest and most robust approach was to take the least-squares linear-regression trend on the data. That’s what I’ve done, for three separate periods, one of which is 19 years long. WeeklyRise’s quarrel is with official climatology, not with me. I simply use its methods.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 14, 2021 5:28 pm

The R^2 value here is not a measure of statistical significance, it is a measure of goodness of fit of the model. A high R^2 either means that the data are very noisy or that a linear model is not a good fit. In this case the R^2 is fairly low, since most of the data points do not fall close to the line of best fit.

The p-value measures the probability of achieving the observed result assuming the null hypothesis is true. It depends both on the “noisiness” of the data and on the sample size. That is, it’s possible to have a low R^2 value and a low p-value if you have noisy data but a large sample size (you’re looking at many years). This is why climate scientists do often look at periods of 30 years or more.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 7:39 pm

You said, “A high R^2 either means that the data are very noisy or that a linear model is not a good fit. In this case the R^2 is fairly low, since most of the data points do not fall close to the line of best fit.” You have this exactly backwards, confirming my suspicion that your statistics skills are poor.

The correlation coefficient can only have values between -1 and +1, with zero meaning no correlation. A perfect fit of data to a line at 45 degrees slope will have a correlation coefficient (r) of +1; r^2 would also be +1. Extremely noisy data will result in a small r, and an r^2 even smaller!

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 15, 2021 5:09 am

Thanks for correcting my typo – the above sentence should have read, “A low R^2 either means that the data are very noisy or that a linear model is not a good fit. In this case the R^2 is fairly low, since most of the data points do not fall close to the line of best fit.”

In this case, the low R^2 value doesn’t indicate per se that a linear model is a poor choice for these data, because the data are very noisy. The low statistical significance of the trend does indicate that Mr. Monckton is looking at too short a time interval to establish a meaningful trend given the noise level of the data.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 15, 2021 11:51 am

You said, “In this case the R^2 is fairly low, since most of the data points do not fall close to the line of best fit.”

Once again you demonstrate how poorly you understand statistics and OLS. This time I don’t think you can claim it was the result of typing with your eyes closed!

I’ll try again, but your denseness is becoming tedious. Even if all the points fell nearly exactly on the regression line, a zero slope would give you a zero correlation coefficient. [Incidentally, if all the points were exactly on the line, you would get a divide-by-zero error for r^2.] The r^2 value explains the percentage of variance in the dependent variable that can be attributed to the independent variable. The low r^2 in this case means the independent variable (time) has no predictive or explanatory value — there is no correlation! The data points do actually have more proximity to the zero-slope regression line than a time-series with larger excursions in temperature might have. However, if the slope of the line is 0, then it means you are just looking at noise, regardless of the amplitude. The magnitude of the residuals (closeness to the regression line) will not change the slope or r^2 if they are located at the same location along the time-line and have the same magnitude ratios. The noise is varying randomly about a line of no persistent change. As long as the OLS regression line has a slope of zero then it cannot be said that it demonstrates warming.

Christopher is correct in saying that for the interval of time he illustrates, there is a hiatus from the previous typical warming trend(s). Whether it will continue is another question. That brings us back to the situation of how many heads in a series becomes so improbable that it suggests an unfair coin.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 15, 2021 1:15 pm

Your continually patronizing tone degrades the quality of discussion. I kindly ask that you refrain. Thanks.

Here is the R^2 value of a zero slope line with all points falling directly on the line of best fit:

comment image

In this case, the linear model perfectly described the series.

Here is the R^2 value for a zero slope line in which none of the values fall on the line of best fit:

comment image

Here we have an R^2 value of functionally zero even though it is clear that the zero slope line does describe the data, since it shows no trend.

This is why the R^2 value can be used to help us evaluate the appropriateness of our model choice, but cannot be used to inform us about the trend. We could have noisy data that are producing a zero slope simply as a consequence of the noise itself. We need to use the p-value to test if this can be ruled out. For Mr. Monckton’s time interval, it cannot be ruled out.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 17, 2021 7:55 am

I’m not so much patronizing you as I am ridiculing you! You criticized Christopher, pretending that you are somewhat of an expert in statistics. However, you are only fooling yourself. Every time that you sit down and abuse your keyboard you demonstrate that you don’t understand the subject of OLS regression. If your statistics package reports an r^2 value of 1 for your first example, then I would suggest that you get another package. Try Excel. While it has some known bugs, it at least handles this situation properly.

The standard form of the equation of a line is y = mx +b, where m is the slope of the line (tangent), and b is the y-intercept. In the case you illustrate, the slope of the regression line is zero. Multiplying 0 times x, the first term becomes zero, leaving only the y-intercept. The y-value is constant. That means, there is NO correlation between x and y! Therefore, the r-value (correlation coefficient) is zero, by definition. Squaring zero gives zero as a result. Again, the utility of r^2 is that it explains the variance in the dependent variable as a function of the independent variable. In your first case, as x increases, the variance in y is constant. Thus, there is no explanatory value.

If you really understood how the tool you are attempting to use works, you would have realized that there is a bug in the program.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 18, 2021 5:55 am

I make no pretense at expertise in statistics, I’m plainly (and politely) making an argument that stands on its own feet. Amusingly, the “statistics package” I’m using is the Excel data analysis tools, so I might suggest that you engage in some self reflection before telling other people what they do and do not understand.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 18, 2021 12:37 pm

As I said, Excel has some known bugs. Your package is giving different results from mine.

Your argument does not stand “on its own feet.” That is the problem. Yet, your keep trying to salvage your original claim.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 18, 2021 12:44 pm

Perhaps if you share your results we can make a comparison and work out where the issue is.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 14, 2021 10:39 pm

Weekly-rise continues to moan about methods that official climatology uses. He should direct his concerns to official climatology, not to me. The R-squared value measures one form of significance, the p-value another. If the R-squared shows a zero trend across more than five years, waffling about the p-value is otiose.

And in 2011 I had a discussion with the head of the World Meteorological Organization, who had said climatology likes to take 30-year trends. I replied that one should take 60-year trends, so as to cancel the distortions caused by the cycles – 30 years in one direction, 30 years in another – of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

He was furious that I had dared to raise such a point, and tried to have me banned from the 2011 Durban climate conference. So i borrowed a plane and parachuted in.

There has been no global warming for more than five years, and precious little during the past couple of decades. Get over it.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 15, 2021 5:13 am

The R^2 statistic cannot be used to establish the existence or non-existence of a trend. Nor can it establish the direction and magnitude of one. If you want to use the methods that “official climatology” uses, you need to make sure you’re using them correctly.

The purpose of using ~30 years as a minimum interval is because we want to identify the nonrandom component of the series. The 60 year PDO cycles would hardly be called “random noise” since, as you point out, they are cyclic.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 15, 2021 11:59 am

You said, “The R^2 statistic cannot be used to establish the existence or non-existence of a trend.” You are wrong about this also. If the r^2 value is close to 1 it demonstrates a strong correlation and the regression line will have a slope near 45 degrees. Just to be clear, that means a strong upward trend. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 15, 2021 1:25 pm

An R^2 close to one would imply that the data are strongly linear and contain little random variability, and so hypothetically would give us confidence that the slope of the calculated trend reflects an underlying nonrandom signal in the data. However, that is not the case for climate data, which have substantial random variability, and so will rarely show small residuals from the line of best fit.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
January 17, 2021 8:20 am

You said, “… minimum interval is because we want to identify the nonrandom component of the series.” When you use the word “we,” is that the royal we, or are you implying that you work in the field of climatology? If the latter, then that explains a lot about the criticism leveled at climatologists being innumerate.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
January 15, 2021 9:04 am

Bingo. There is a reason it is called the “correlation coefficient.”

Editor
January 14, 2021 9:11 am

The NOAA chart shows a weak La-Nina is already here at 1.2 and then 1.3