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.
| Year | DJF | JFM | FMA | MAM | AMJ | MJJ | JJA | JAS | ASO | SON | OND | NDJ |
| 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 | -0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| 1952 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | -0.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| 1953 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 1954 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.0 | -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 | -0.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.7 |
| 1958 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| 1959 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | -0.1 | -0.2 | -0.3 | -0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Year | DJF | JFM | FMA | MAM | AMJ | MJJ | JJA | JAS | ASO | SON | OND | NDJ |
| 1960 | -0.1 | -0.1 | -0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 1961 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | -0.1 | -0.3 | -0.3 | -0.2 | -0.2 |
| 1962 | -0.2 | -0.2 | -0.2 | -0.3 | -0.3 | -0.2 | 0.0 | -0.1 | -0.1 | -0.2 | -0.3 | -0.4 |
| 1963 | -0.4 | -0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
| 1964 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.1 | -0.3 | -0.6 | -0.6 | -0.6 | -0.7 | -0.8 | -0.8 | -0.8 | -0.8 |
| 1965 | -0.6 | -0.3 | -0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.7 |
| 1966 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | -0.1 | -0.1 | -0.2 | -0.3 |
| 1967 | -0.4 | -0.5 | -0.5 | -0.4 | -0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | -0.2 | -0.3 | -0.4 | -0.3 | -0.4 |
| 1968 | -0.6 | -0.7 | -0.6 | -0.4 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| 1969 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.6 |
| Year | DJF | JFM | FMA | MAM | AMJ | MJJ | JJA | JAS | ASO | SON | OND | NDJ |
| 1970 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | -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 | -0.4 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| 1973 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.5 | -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 | -0.3 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| 1977 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 1978 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.1 | -0.2 | -0.3 | -0.3 | -0.4 | -0.4 | -0.4 | -0.3 | -0.1 | 0.0 |
| 1979 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| Year | DJF | JFM | FMA | MAM | AMJ | MJJ | JJA | JAS | ASO | SON | OND | NDJ |
| 1980 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | -0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| 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 |
| 1982 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.2 |
| 1983 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.3 | -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 | -0.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| 1987 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.1 |
| 1988 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.1 | -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 |
| Year | DJF | JFM | FMA | MAM | AMJ | MJJ | JJA | JAS | ASO | SON | OND | NDJ |
| 1990 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 1991 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.5 |
| 1992 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.1 | -0.1 | -0.2 | -0.3 | -0.1 |
| 1993 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| 1994 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.1 |
| 1995 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | -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 | -0.1 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
| 1998 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 0.5 | -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 |
| Year | DJF | JFM | FMA | MAM | AMJ | MJJ | JJA | JAS | ASO | SON | OND | NDJ |
| 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 | -0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.1 |
| 2003 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | -0.3 | -0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 2004 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| 2005 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | -0.1 | -0.1 | -0.1 | -0.3 | -0.6 | -0.8 |
| 2006 | -0.8 | -0.7 | -0.5 | -0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 2007 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0 | -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 | -0.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Year | DJF | JFM | FMA | MAM | AMJ | MJJ | JJA | JAS | ASO | SON | OND | NDJ |
| 2010 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.4 | -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 | -0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | -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 | -0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| 2015 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 |
| 2016 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | -0.3 | -0.6 | -0.7 | -0.7 | -0.7 | -0.6 |
| 2017 | -0.3 | -0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | -0.1 | -0.4 | -0.7 | -0.9 | -1.0 |
| 2018 | -0.9 | -0.8 | -0.6 | -0.4 | -0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| 2019 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Year | DJF | JFM | FMA | MAM | AMJ | MJJ | JJA | JAS | ASO | SON | OND | NDJ |
| 2020 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | -0.2 | -0.4 | -0.6 | -0.9 | -1.2 | -1.3 | ? |
“However, the new Pause is at a surface-temperature plateau 0.3 C° above the old Pause”
And so it goes. If you insist on looking at a rising trend as a staircase, where you draw lines from the top of the last spike to the bottom of the next, then you can see it as an escalator of pauses. You still get to the top.
But only at El Nino steps.
Thanks for that Nick,
Therefore NO HUMAN CAUSATION.
Or you cold insist on drawing linear trends through step functions to try to fool yourself.
Back to your rocking chair Nick. !
fred250
You raise an important point. It has been warming for about the last 12,000 years, and sea level records suggest that there has been linear warming for about the last 8,000 years. Occam’s Razor suggests that we should accept the simplest explanation: What we are observing is a continuation of what started thousands of years ago. Alarmists dismiss that and say that humans burning fossil fuels must be responsible. Now, if the atmosphere is only warming in steps delineated by El Nino events, then it supports the idea that what we are experiencing is natural and a result of ocean cycles disposing of heat.
Plot of UAH TLT monthly with linear trend, 3rd order fit (because Spencer did a while back to imply deceleration in warming trend), and lines for the “No warming since 1998” meme and Monckton’s new version:
ENSO provides the froth, not the rise
Sorry Nick, denial won’t help you.
No warming from 1980-1998
No warming from 2001-2015
Atmospheric warming ONLY from El Nino events.
And thanks for showing everyone the build up of energy IN THE OCEAN between El Nino events
CO2 doesn’t warm oceans
NO HUMAN CO2 EFFECT.
Well done Nick ! 🙂
If I remember correctly on a previous thread you accused Andy May of hyping a cooling trend based upon adding stations in the more northern areas. Do you have an explanation why adding more and more stations in the southern hemisphere might bias your temps to the warming side, especially since orbital parameters have the SH receiving more of the sun’s energy that the NH?
And your trend from 1945 to 2020 is what, Nick? How about your trend for 1910 to 1945, Nick? What would a reasonable person conclude about CO2 restrictions and taxes from the totality of the climate information we possess?
Mr Stokes is no more an architect than he is a mathematician. On a staircase, if the runs are considerably longer than the rises, the pitch will be greatly reduced. Long pauses, then, are exactly what one would expect to see where there is a rising trend far, far slower than that which he and his fellow-believers had originally predicted.
The longest warming trend in the UAH temperature anomaly is “all of it”, that is, about 40 years, so there’s that.
I understand that it’s actually Dr Stokes who is in fact a mathematician by degree and practice. I can’t speak to his architectural qualifications.
Regardless of his “degree and practice” he certainly does a good job of appearing not to be one when posting here at WUWT.
James Hansen posted the following paper today: “Global Temperature in 2020″
https://mailchi.mp/caa/global-temperature-in-2020?e=08131c833b
The abstract:
14 January 2021
“James Hansena, Makiko Satoa, Reto Ruedyb,c, Gavin Schmidtc,
Ken Lob,c, Michael Hendricksonb,cAbstract.Global surface temperature in 2020 was in a virtual dead-heat with 2016 for warmest year in the period of instrumental data in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. The rate of global warming has accelerated in the past several years. The 2020 global temperature was +1.3°C (~2.3°F) warmer than in the 1880-1920 base period; global temperature in that base period is a reasonable estimate of ‘pre-industrial’ temperature. The six warmest years in the GISS record all occur in the past six years, and the 10 warmest years are all in the 21st century. Growth rates of the greenhouse gases driving global warming are increasing, not declining.”
ROFLMAO
GISS…. once-was-data. !
They have no idea what the actual temperature was during the 1880-1920 period for MOST of the globe.
…, but it was just after the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, so we can be very thankful for whatever warming has actually occurred.
“Reasonable Estimate” oh well.. must be “scienceᴸᴼᴸ”. 😉
And the manic “adjustments” that have been made to basically EVERY surface station make GISS nothing but a fantasy fabrication., designed to tell the story they want to tell.
Grimm Bros would have been proud. !
Or should I say “Mills and Boon”
“Abstract.Global surface temperature in 2020 was in a virtual dead-heat with 2016 for warmest year in the period of instrumental data in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis.”
What no mention of 1998?
According to the UAH chart, 1998 and 2016 are statistically tied, which makes 2020 tied, too.
Hansen also said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, which would make it about that much warmer than 2016 and 2020, too.
A new AMO cycle has just started or will start soon. If you compare the periods 1941-44 and 2016-20, you’ll find the same double peak , separated by 75 years or 7 solar cycles …
I did something like that myself.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1880/to/offset:-0.0/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1996.5/to:2014/offset:-0.0/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/offset:-0.0/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1880/to:1996.5/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1932/to:1962/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1940/to:1947/trend
You can see the same rises going on in the 1940s until it cooled. Once a person realizes these are all natural variations on a slowly rising background warming, it doesn’t look like a problem. All you really have is a long term 350 year warming trend.
There is simple possible explanation for the recent pattern of warming -pause – warming. A paper explains this stair-step warming pattern. It doesn’t well fit the alarmist narrative, so it has been pretty much ignored.
“Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales“, Roger N. Jones and James H. Ricketts, Earth System Dynamics, 8 (1), 2017 — Abstract…
“Interactions between externally forced and internally generated climate variations on decadal timescales is a major determinant of changing climate risk. Severe testing is applied to observed global and regional surface and satellite temperatures and modelled surface temperatures to determine whether these interactions are independent, as in the traditional signal-to-noise model, or whether they interact, resulting in step-like warming.
“This model indicates that in situ warming of the atmosphere does not occur; instead, a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere is proposed. It is physically plausible and theoretically sound. The presence of step-like – rather than gradual – warming is important information for characterising and managing future climate risk.”
I don’t know if there has been more research about this.
2/ More about the stair-step theory of warming.
The Pacific Ocean heat engine: global climate’s regulator
Roger N Jones and James H Ricketts
Earth Systems Dynamics, 2019
“Climate change is routinely represented as a smoothly changing signal surrounded by statistical noise. However, on decadal timescales, warming proceeds as a sequence of steady-state regimes punctuated by abrupt shifts. Here we present evidence that this process is regulated by a heat engine spanning the tropical Pacific Ocean. The eastern-central Pacific maintains steady-state conditions, collecting heat and delivering it to the Western Pacific warm pool. This acts as distributor, transporting heat upwards and to the poles. The heat engine is networked within the climate system, linking different oscillations and circulations as heat energy is dissipated. The process is self-regulating.
”Steady-state regimes will persist until they become unstable and need more or less power depending on the direction of forcing. Under greenhouse gas forcing, shifts initiated within the heat engine propagate broadly across the shallow ocean, followed by warming over land and at higher latitudes. The heat engine was in free mode during the early 20th century, dominated by decadal variability. From the 1960s, it switched into forced mode, initiating a stepladder-like pattern of warming in regional and global climate. The most recent shift commenced in the warm pool in December 2012, ending the so-called hiatus (1997–2013). During 2014–15, surface temperatures warmed abruptly by ~0.25 °C globally and >0.5 °C over northern hemisphere land and high latitudes.
“With increasing forcing, the heat engine will shift more frequently. Rapid decreases in greenhouse gas emissions will slow the process and potentially, could stabilise it. Managing unavoidable change requires developing the capacity to predict shifts in advance. Planning for rapid changes in extreme events is an urgent priority.”
“We don’t even plan for the past.” Since there has been no change to the number of extreme weather events since the 1960s, how does one predict rapid changes in the future? Their “Rapid decreases in greenhouse gas emissions will slow the process and potentially, could stabilise it.” is not supported, in my opinion.
Historically, El Ninos occurred within a range of 2 to 7 years. How does the paper modify that number range?
Repeating myself from a comment offered earlier this week on another WUWT article ……..
The earth has been warming for the past one-hundred seventy years. A rough estimate would place the increase at a one degree centigrade rise since 1850, more or less.
IMHO, the earth will continue to warm long into the future with pauses here and there along the way, and with the expected differences in regional warming rates that will occur within that general long-term warming trend.
Once again, as I did earlier this week, I present this graphical temperature trend analysis, Beta Blocker’s Year 2100 GMT Prediction Envelope:
The analysis which produced this prediction envelope is entirely self-contained within the above illustration.
As shown on the illustration, my guess is that a + 2 C rise above pre-industrial by 2100 is the most likely scenario, simply because it is the one which most closely follows the GMT trend pattern of 1850-2019.
How will we know when the earth has stopped warming?
It will be when the thirty-year running average trend of GMT turns negative and then stays negative for another thirty to fifty years.
According to Javier’s cyclic climate trend analysis, as he presented it on Judith Currie’s blog in early 2018, the GMT inflection point occurs roughly in the year 2200, some 180 years from today.
This spawns yet another question: How many megawatts of electricity will be consumed between now and the year 2200 in modeling the ICP’s climate projections?
The UAH data bears little relationship with what occurs at surface level. Rather than look at the anomaly, take a look at the actual data. It only indicates a temperature at 800mbar. What does that means from a surface perspective.
The surface temperature is thermoSTATICALLY controlled. Ocean surface will not exceed 30C in open ocean and does not go below -2C. Reliable temperature records show no warming in the past 40 years; exactly as expected with a thermostatically controlled environment with no fundamental changes in orbital geometry, asteroid hits or movement of land masses.
This chart shows the correction of the UAH dataset from 5.6 to 6.0. I am waiting for Version 7 that removes the drift completely and shows zero trend – as it must because Earth’s temperature is thermostatically controlled.
Any temperature trend inside millennia timescale are indicative of measurement error not actual temperature.
The Australian Bureau of Meterology says the 2020-21 La Nina has already peaked. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
I am waiting to see what will take place when sunspots show up again in the northern hemisphere of the sun. Temps in the ENSO regions stopped falling at the end of November when sunspots started crossing in the southern hemisphere of the sun. The sun has now been blank for 11 days. Sunspots should start showing up in the north sometime in February. This will be a good test for or against the idea that sunspots are connected with temp changes in the ENSO rehion.
In the above comment I meant to say that temps in the ENSO region stopped falling at the end of “October” when sunspots appeared in the Southern Hemisphere. The last of the sunspots in the north faded away at the end of October. Ever since then it was either southern sunspots or a blank sun with only a very few short lived sunspots in the north.
Sea surface temps in this one area (5N by 135W) in the middle of the Pacific have finally dropped below 26C (color shift from yellow to green) for the first time in at least 8 years.This coincided with changes in wind flows at 500 hPa as a cold mass of air pushed all the way down to the Equator in a large tear drop shape. How cold will this go?
See Joe Bastardi’s piece on this:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/15/the-new-pause/
. I first pointed out 3 years ago that all of the atmospheric warming occurs in steps coincident with super El Niños. There is no CO2 warming.
See my https://www.cfact.org/2018/….
Given that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere cannot warm the surface without warming the atmosphere as well, it follows that the surface warming must have another cause.
I would like to see the 3 graphs redone with the left side range from -3.0C to +3.0C instead of tenths of C.
dear Lord
I am always amazed that you can bring all these formula’s and stuff to prove that more CO2 causes warming. When I was worried about driving my big old truck that likes a lot of diesel I decided to check whether ‘this’ warming was indeed happening in my own backyard. I considered that the theory of AGW must show up by an increasing trend in minimum temperature which then pushes up the average temperature. I found that it is not happening here. You can click on my name and read my report. Minimum temperatures dropped by ca. 0.8C over the past 40 years or so.
Now, as you know, CO2 diffuses evenly in the atmosphere, meaning that the trend of warming, if caused by CO2, must be more or less the same, everywhere I measure. It does not. The NH warms much more that the SH. The arctic warms even at a greater rate that the NH.
How does that fit in all your formulae?
We do not prove that CO2 causes warming. We prove that if it causes warming it causes a third of the predicted warming, ending the climate “emergency”. As to the polar amplification of warming, see ane elementary textbook of climatology.
Lord Monckton
Thank you kindly for your response. I appreciate it. But if the CO2 (gas) is the cause of the warming you will understand that as a chemist I must tell you that there should be no ‘amplification’ effect whatsoever. CO2 diffuses evenly in the atmosphere. Therefore, everywhere on earth, the CO2 is going up at approximately the same rate. Hence, the rate of temperature increase on earth – wherever I measure – should be more or less the same. But, now, note the results of delta T between the SH and NH oceans:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1979/to:2021/trend/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1979/to:2021/trend
You see what the problem is? In addition to this, the rate of increase in the arctic oceans is again much higher than that of the NH oceans. In the antarctic temperatures have not been increasing at all….!!!
I am sure all of this does not fit in your equations (+ text book). The reason why CO2 is increasing is not even much to do with our ’emissions’. It has to do with the decreasing area in the arctic, that is cold enough to sinc the CO2:
2H2O + CO2 + cold = > HCO3- + H3O +
You understand where I am going with this. The warming in the arctic is natural, possibly due a magnetic stirrer effect, where earth’s inner core re-aligns with that of the sun, or due to more volcanic activity in that area, and Greenland. The warming is spreading from the north to the south. That is what we can see happening by studying the patterns.
The problem that I have with people like you and Roy en Ferdinand is that you are still giving the nod to AGW whilst all the data are saying that AGW is nonsense. Now, you may claim it is a smaller nod (3 x smaller) , but it one nonetheless. It does not help our case.
In this case, in the comment above, when I refer to AGW, I mean specifically due to CO2. There is indeed other AGW’s, e.g. due to irrigation and plantation (e.g. Christie et al) and due to ships burning dirty oil causing soot on ice, which traps heat from the sun, causing ice to melt.
In respone to HenryP, though CO2 is a well-mixed greenhouse gas the distribution through the atmosphere of any temperature change that it may cause is governed chiefly by non-radiative transports – earlier afternoon convection in the tropics, acceleration of the Hadley circulation and, at higher latitudes, the Rossby waves, and consequent poleward advection of additional heat from the tropics. That is why I have suggested that HenryP should refer to an elementary textbook of climatology.
Much of the differential rate of warming in the Arctic is to be expected thanks to these mechanical, non-radiative transports. Some of it, however, appears to be caused by submarine volcanism off Greenland.
sorry Christopher
looks like you are not really playing ball….
you admit there might be “some” (extra) volcanism?
Why do people think that the cooling of earth since genesis is on an absolute linear or binominal curve?
There are likely some bumps in is?
The heating of the arctic seems extraordinary, as has been the movement of the magnetic north pole over the last 100 years.
So, we are back to the beginning:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tps2cd4kuds8o6g/SUBMISSION%20by%20Henry%20Pool.docx?dl=0
Your formulae don’t work for me, here…
/
obviously, I have been thinking as to why minimum temperatures here have dropped, whereas in Norway they have gone up….
anyone an idea?
I must say it’s refreshing to see Guv’nor Brenchley posting about climate.
It’s been some years but I recall his debate here on WUWT with Peter Hadfield going somewhat askew and ‘is Lawdship deciding his prodigious talents were best devoted to ferreting out Obama’s real birth certificate.
May I assume that will be established sometime before the next glaciation event takes place?
Off topic
Goes towards establishing credibility, except for the clearly credulous, it would seem.
The credibility of a scientific argument is intrinsic to the argument itself. That is how a patent clerk was able to demonstrate that Newton’s celestial mechanics were not, after all, quite correct. Nobody cared that the paper was by a patent clerk.They cared about the argument he had presented.
It is well known that those of us who have dared to question the climate communist party line have been subjected to systematic and lavishly-funded reputational damage, in the hope of deterring others who might otherwise join us in pointing out that the climate scam is just that – a scam.
There’s no shortage of money on the side that supports you and for a long time they’ve employed the same org, in fact the very same experts who helped to fight against regulating tobacco, the “scam” of its day.