The New Pause lengthens from 5 years 4 months to 5 years 6 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

If there’s one thing that upsets true-believers in the cult of Thermageddon, it’s a Pause in global warming. The first Pause lasted 224 months. Now another one appears to have got its boots on, and it has lengthened by 2 months since I first reported it last month. The least-squares trend on the latest UAH data show no global warming for 5 years 6 months from August 2015 to January 2021 inclusive:

Note that UAH has rebased its anomalies. Rebasing does not affect the trend, but I have not yet got the rebased data: they will be available in a few days.

Last month there was quite a bit of screeching in comments from the Thermageddonites about how meaningless this exercise was. So let me explain what such long Pauses mean.

Imagine a staircase. If the rise of each stair remains constant but the runs lengthen, the slope of the stair will decrease. Long Pauses are like stairs with long runs. They provide good illustrations that the overall rate of medium-term global warming may turn out to be a lot less than IPCC et hoc genus omne had originally predicted.

In fact, both in the boundary layer and in the mid troposphere – i.e., just above the ground and about six miles up, the official predictions have been 2.4 times the observed anthropogenic warming rate over the past 30 years. The near-surface warming rate was calculated from the mean of two terrestrial and two satellite datasets.

That is a startling failure. Takes the current 3.7 K midrange equilibrium-sensitivity projection from the CMIP6 models (Meehl et al. 2020), and divide it by 2.4 to bring it into line with observed reality. The ECS prediction falls from 3.7 to just over 1.5 K. That is very far from being a “climate emergency”.

If we were to calculate solely using UAH, the most honest of the four datasets, then we should find that, instead of the predicted 0.34 K decade–1 anthropogenic warming over the 30 years 1991-2020, there was only 0.15 K decade–1 real-world, observed warming, of which only 70% (Wu et al., 2019; Scafetta 2021), or 0.105 K decade–1, was anthropogenic. On that basis, IPCC’s 0.34 K decade–1 prediction was a 3.2-fold overstatement, implying midrange ECS of less than 1.2 K.

Now, where have I seen that value before? Oh yes, my team has calculated that ECS is indeed about 1.2 K, based on recent mainstream midrange observationally-based data and methods.

But let us give the Thermageddonites some crumb of comfort to take away from their abject, continuing and frankly embarrassing failures of prediction. If we were to look at the last eight years’ UAH data, the trend would be equivalent to more than 0.4 K decade–1. That is what a large El Niño – a naturally-occurring process – does to the trend from time to time.

I shall continue to report the present Pause for as long as it may last. And, if we see no very strong El Niño in the next few years, it could be quite a long and telling Pause. The weeping and gnashing of the Thermageddonites’ Obamacare dentures will be as the chirping of six billion bats in a cave in Yunnan.

4.8 42 votes
Article Rating
243 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
shrnfr
February 3, 2021 6:19 am

Realistically, a pause probably signifies the presence of strange attractors in the mathematically chaotic system. The presence of “steps” in the temperature record seems to have been well documented.

But yes, this stuff gives lie to the “hottest xxx evah!” crud pandered around.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  shrnfr
February 3, 2021 7:30 am

This link is the start of a tutorial on detrending a time series. It discusses using a temperature series and breaking it down into “trend+seasonality+irregularity” factors which is exactly what is needed.

https://flylib.com/books/en/2.22.1/detrending_a_time_series.html

It would be interesting to see what would come of that.

shrnfr
Reply to  Jim Gorman
February 3, 2021 8:03 am

Detrending a time series forces you to impose some of your own concepts of what the time series does. Are you on an uptrend of a low frequency component that is cyclical. Is there just drift in the system? Do you have strange attractors running loose in a chaotic process? I think a lot of us would be inclined to go with “uptrend of a low frequency component” of a cyclical process. The CAGW crew want to vote for drift.

ATheoK
Reply to  shrnfr
February 4, 2021 4:29 pm

 this stuff gives lie to the “hottest xxx evah!” crud pandered around”

Gives lie to everything demonizing CO₂. Temperature is not dependent upon atmospheric CO₂ levels.

Eric Harpham
February 3, 2021 6:20 am

Brilliant news. Let’s start a sweepstake, just for fun, as to how long this pause will last.
My entry is 18 years and 1 month. No need to deliver any prizes if I win because by that time the chances are that I will be either 6 foot under or badly burnt.

dodgy geezer
Reply to  Eric Harpham
February 3, 2021 6:33 am

17 years 6 months of dropping temperatures for me. I am firmly in the 60-70 year cycle club. That would give a pause of 35 years if you want to measure from the start of the cycle…

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Eric Harpham
February 3, 2021 7:04 am

The length of the last Little Ice Age.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 3, 2021 7:54 am

Hope not. New skis time.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Eric Harpham
February 3, 2021 9:53 am

Along with your sweepstake, start a side bet as to when the rationalizations from the crisis crowd will begin and another, as to the cumulative total of excuses.

John Tillman
Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 3, 2021 10:07 am

Alarmists can just recycle their old Pause excuses.

This interval is remarkable for containing 2016, the (tiny fractionally) “hottest year evah!”, thanks to Super El Niño of 2015-16, pipping out SEN of 1997-98.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  John Tillman
February 3, 2021 10:51 am

They probably don’t really want to do that. Ask Ben Santer why not.

John Tillman
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 3, 2021 12:13 pm
Art
Reply to  Eric Harpham
February 3, 2021 11:30 am

This pause will only last until the Thermageddonites “adjust” the data to fit the narrative. I give it 6 months maximum.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Eric Harpham
February 3, 2021 12:43 pm

30 years based on the unrecognized medium term ocean heat cycles getting some recognition for a change

goldminor
Reply to  Eric Harpham
February 3, 2021 1:40 pm

My guesstimates point to the late 2030s before the next warm period sets in. The ENSO regions should trend mostly cool until then.

Cheshire Red
February 3, 2021 6:25 am

The big giveaway is when alarmists react badly to good news. It’s the exact opposite of a normal human reaction to receiving good news from what appears a bad situation.

Why would anyone be angry if observations show lower ECS and therefore no ‘climate emergency’ and thus the planet is ‘saved’?

Answer; because ‘climate emergency’ is the driver of their lifeblood. Without it their AGW scare, policies, income, status, reputations and financial and political investments, not to mention their purpose, fails.

Hence they keep their fake emergency on the boil, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

PS A question to Christopher; what needs to happen to temperatures for this Pause to connect with the previous, longer one? That would really make some alarmist heads explode!

dodgy geezer
February 3, 2021 6:27 am

The AMO is now firmly in a downward phase. I expect model predictions to drastically diverge from real observations over the next several years.

Look for a MAJOR requirement to amend observational data starting up. If I were the IPCC, I would claim that ALL known climate cycles need to be corrected for, and then eradicate all the downward phases while retaining the upward ones. There are so many people now whose livelihoods depend on global warming that I am sure they would intentionally see nothing wrong with this ‘fix’…

SMC
Reply to  dodgy geezer
February 3, 2021 7:20 am

Isn’t the PDO also heading into a cool phase? That should make things ‘interesting’ if both the PDO and AMO cool at the same time.

Reply to  SMC
February 3, 2021 9:41 am

PDO is in cold phase, AMO is on the way

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 4, 2021 7:14 am

That CO2 better get busy! I prefer warm weather.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  dodgy geezer
February 3, 2021 8:02 am

NASA/NOAA are already changing the data.
Check:
https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/

goldminor
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 3, 2021 1:36 pm

Nice stuff.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 4, 2021 4:20 am

Heller’s work exposing the blatant manipulation and fr@ud in the US temperature records should be much more widely known.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  dodgy geezer
February 3, 2021 10:26 am

Therein lies the “emergency” and “crisis” to lock in taxes and spending programs for climate justice recipients before the truth shows up. Once embedded in programs for the poor the truth will have no bearing.

goldminor
Reply to  dodgy geezer
February 3, 2021 1:35 pm

The easiest person to fool first is always oneself.

Tim Gorman
February 3, 2021 6:29 am

Imagine a staircase. If the rise of each stair remains constant but the runs lengthen, the slope of the stair will decrease. Long Pauses are like stairs with long runs.”

Good analogy!

I’ve always thought that linear trend lines are misleading for this use. Linear trends tend to lead to an improper extrapolation for periods after the last data point.

A step-wise graph would show far better the impacts of El Nino’s and La Nina’s and would not lend itself to a false extrapolation. Maybe even a 3rd degree trend line?

saveenergy
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 3, 2021 7:49 am

“Imagine a staircase; & the rise of each stair remains constant” then call it an ‘Escherian Staircase
It works exactly like earths climate, no mater how high or low you go, you’ll always end up in the same place !https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3j-1MRhHks

you may like these as well –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVyYcAI90jw

Tim Gorman
Reply to  saveenergy
February 3, 2021 8:25 am

Perspective!

gringojay
Reply to  saveenergy
February 3, 2021 2:34 pm

Yo! M.C. Escher in da’ house —

36BC63E1-C765-441F-B0F6-992E2B1255F6.jpeg
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 3, 2021 9:38 am

Tim
You remarked, “Linear trends tend to lead to an improper extrapolation for periods after the last data point. ”
Probably not as bad as higher-order polynomials. Extrapolation is always fraught with risk.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 6, 2021 8:42 am

Clyde,

I’m sorry I missed your reply earlier. 1. Short term trends many times become long term trends. 2. linear trends many times miss short term trends. 3. linear trends also miss cyclic changes quite often.

There is no guarantee that recent cooling trends around the globe won’t continue but it will take a long time for linear trending to catch it if it does continue whereas 2nd or 3rd degree trends will show it right away.

Nothing is perfect for PREDICTING the future.

Dudley Horscroft
February 3, 2021 6:39 am

As has been said many times before, it all depends where the starting and stopping points are when the is a large amount of variability of the data. If only we had decent data from about 1750! At least that would smooth out the trend.

Notanacademic
February 3, 2021 6:42 am

After reading this article and the previous one I have come to the conclusion that elninos are responsible for the warming in the last thirty/Forty years with perhaps a little help from the clean air act and nothing to do with plant food.

ATheoK
Reply to  Notanacademic
February 4, 2021 5:22 pm

Visit “Bob Tisdale’s website“.
Check out some of his books, including ‘Who Turned on the Heat?‘.

Joe Bastardi explains how El Nino pumps immense amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere.
Water vapor increases in dry areas, e.g. Arctic, increase the temperature, especially at night or periods of darkness.

Notanacademic
Reply to  ATheoK
February 5, 2021 2:25 am

I’ve had a quick look, a little treasure trove. Will have a good look later. Thanks 👍

Last edited 3 months ago by Notanacademic
Hubert
February 3, 2021 6:43 am

A pause is not a theory ! you have to consider a longer period and look what happened between 1940/45 and 2015/20, it’s typically an AMO cycle , same as you can detect it last thousands of years ! So the “AMO pause” could last 30 years …
If “La Nina” still active this whole year, then it could trigger temperature to lower level and initiate a new AMO cycle … wait and see …

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Hubert
February 3, 2021 7:06 am

That’s one of the biggest problems with the current models. They simply don’t show any indications of cycles anywhere in their output. Too short of a period for validation?

Reply to  Hubert
February 3, 2021 7:29 am

comment image

The actual Niño 3.4 regions development.

Scissor
Reply to  Hubert
February 3, 2021 8:00 am

Yes, really the long term temperatures have been in a downtrend for about 10,000 years. It’s unlikely that trend will be broken.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Scissor
February 3, 2021 8:46 am

Sadly, it probably won’t occur until the next interglacial. Hopefully by that time mankind will be back on the apolitical science bandwagon with colonies or habitats on the Moon, Mars and the Jovian satellites!

Dave
February 3, 2021 6:54 am

Sea level in the year 2100… that’s what I want to see. Unfortunately I won’t live to be 150. Will anyone still be living in Miami then? My guess today is… yes, more than live there now..

Gordon A. Dressler
February 3, 2021 7:02 am

Just in time for newly-minted President Joe Biden to claim: “See, my executive orders to fight climate change are working better and faster than anyone thought possible. I told you I was a man of action.”

Last edited 3 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 3, 2021 7:06 am

It *will* happen!

Burgher King
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 3, 2021 7:40 am

Ask him an off-the-cuff question which hasn’t been pre-approved by his handlers.

For example. How long does he expect it will be before we no longer have to worry about hurricanes?

He could reply that the issue will be covered later in an executive order.

But what if he’s forgotten his standard response to an off-the-cuff question?

First there’s a blank stare, then an angry command to just bugger off.

MarkW
Reply to  Burgher King
February 3, 2021 7:49 am

This could explain why the Biden administration has told reporters to file their questions with Biden’s office the day before the press conference. To make sure Biden is never tripped up by an unexpected question.

Burgher King
Reply to  MarkW
February 3, 2021 8:07 am

Any reporter who asks Biden an unscripted question will become a reporter non grata and probably be fired from his job.

goldminor
Reply to  Burgher King
February 3, 2021 1:31 pm

It was reported the other day that Psaki will not handle questions from any reporter who gets out of line. So she is blacklisting any bold/honest reporter to maintain the false image of being open to all questions. Words are hard to form at my disgust for such behavior.

MarkW
Reply to  goldminor
February 3, 2021 3:48 pm

Even more disgusting is how many so called reporters are willing to go along with such abuse.

yirgach
Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2021 5:50 am

You shouldn’t refer to them as “reporters” when they act like that.
Paid media stooges would be more appropriate.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  yirgach
February 4, 2021 7:20 am

Propagandists.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 3, 2021 8:51 am

Newly-minted? You meant counterfeit, didn’t you?
I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that truth tellers are going to be feeling like Sisyphus very soon into the Xiden Regime!

Richard M
February 3, 2021 7:20 am

The new pause is likely to continue to expand in both directions as the current La Nina progresses. It will soon encompass the entire +PDO that started in 2014.

The previous pause was driven somewhat by the -PDO from 2006-2014. When that ended so did the pause. Here’s what the SSTs looked like while the pause was extending.

https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2001/to:2014/offset:-0.2/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2001/to:2014/offset:-0.2/trend

We could flip into another -PDO next year. That would pretty much guarantee the pause will continue for a long, long time.

The big nail in the coffin of CAGW will be when the AMO goes negative. It is already trending down from its peak. There is also some lag in the time it will take for Arctic sea ice to recover and cool the north polar areas.

Eventually, the new pause will combine with the old pause and completely cover the entire +AMO 30 year period. Going back even further we may see some small amount of warming over the entire 60-70 year AMO cycle.

Antero Ollila
February 3, 2021 7:44 am

The temperature of today would be at the level of 2000 (about 0.65 C per the older UAH version) if the shortwave anomaly effect from 2001-2020 would be eliminated from the present-day temperature. The SW anomaly effect has been about +0.46 C (=0,27 C/(W/m2) * 1.68 W/m2) at the end of 2020.

What if the temperature would drop this much during 2021? What would be the explanation? I have the explanation right now based on observations of the CERS satellites.

Look at Figure 4:
https://www.climatexam.com/single-post/the-climate-is-not-warming-faster-than-models-show

Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 8:54 am

Hi Mr. Monckton, can you comment on the fact that the trend since April 2016 is positive?

comment image

How can you possibly claim there is a pause when most of the “pause” has been a warming trend? Interested to hear your thoughts.

Richard M
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 9:24 am

Always multiple ways to look at the data. The anomaly in April 2016 was .41 C and this month it is .12 C. To think that is warming requires some strange mental processes.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 9:44 am

The trend line is not calculated from only the first and last points of the series – I think Mr. Monckton would agree with this.

Richard M
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 9:53 am

So, you’re saying there’s more energy in our atmosphere now than there was in April 2016 because you can draw a line through it? LOL. Maybe you should rethink your mathurbation.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 10:27 am

I am not trying to imply that the trendline I have calculated for the April, 2016-present period is climatologically meaningful. Rather, I am expressing skepticism that the trendline for August, 2015-present that Mr. Monckton has drawn is climatologically meaningful.

It seems rather nonsensical to say there has been no warming since August, 2015, when the trend starting just a few months later shows an upward trend.

Richard M
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 10:45 am

I’ve been having fun with you. You really need to read the post. No one is claiming the trend itself is meaningful. In addition, the only date selected was January 2021 and not a date in the past. The start date was calculated.

If you did the same thing and looked for the earliest warming trend you would find the start date was the very first month of data. You would also find no one claimed it has not warmed.

The POINT is that if a pause exists and it starts to stretch out over time,

the overall rate of medium-term global warming may turn out to be a lot less than IPCC et hoc genus omne had originally predicted.

Try to keep up.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 11:13 am

If Mr. Monckton did not mean to suggest that his trend was meaningful, I would recommend that he re-title his post to something other than, “The New Pause lengthens from 5 years 4 months to 5 years 6 months.”
Perhaps something more accurate, like, “climate data are noisy and it is difficult to separate signal from noise on very short timescales.”

goldminor
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 1:25 pm

In the meantime CO2 is continually being added to the atmosphere on a daily basis. If CO2 was the master control as has been claimed, then the Pause should not exist.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  goldminor
February 3, 2021 1:50 pm

No one has claimed that all weather is driven by fluctuations in CO2 concentration – that is a straw man argument. There is substantial natural variability within the climate system superimposed over any long term trends.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 3:10 pm

But the 30-year trend, taken as the mean of two satellite and two terrestrial datasets, is 2.4 times less than IPCC had originally predicted confidently in 1990.

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 3:50 pm

Actually, the climanistas have all been claiming that CO2 is the only thing that affects climate. They never say so directly, but when you examine what they allow to be put into the models, you see it clearly.

Richard M
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 2:26 pm

Silly comment. Obviously trying to save face because you either didn’t read the post or didn’t understand it. And it appears you still don’t. You are well past the where you should have quit.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 3:09 pm

The heading is factual – admittedly, not a concept with which climate fanatics are familiar.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 1:20 pm

No one is claiming the trend itself is meaningful.

Lord Monckton literally is:

Last month there was quite a bit of screeching in comments from the Thermageddonites about how meaningless this exercise was. So let me explain what such long Pauses mean.

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 2:29 pm

No, he is saying that a long time with no warming will tell us that the total amount of warming is likely to be low. Lord Monckton has chosen one way to measure that. There are others as well.

It’s simply one analysis technique.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 4:22 pm

Which is the meaning he’s claiming for it. Hence he’s saying it is meaningful.

He’s wrong, or at least not necessarily right – this “long” pause so far caused the long term trend to increase. It was 0.11°C / decade at the start of the pause, it’s now 0.137°C / decade.

It’s one very silly way of analyzing data. One in particular that won’t tell you anything useful, but will tell you what you want to see.

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 5:49 pm

You obviously don’t understand what will happen if the pause continues. The trends you mentioned will start going down. We are early in this process at the moment. You would like to avoid having to answer questions when the current length doubles.

If you really believed in AGW you would simply say the pause will come to an early end and will be evidence supporting your beliefs. Seems maybe your beliefs aren’t that strong.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 6:16 pm

I’d be surprised if the ongoing trend doesn’t come down a bit. UAH has been above the trend for some time, it’s inevitable it will drop below the trend for a bit. As time goes on, if UAH is showing a consistent warming rate, the trend from the start will converge towards it. My guess is this will be somewhere between 0.11 and 0.13°C / decade, but it’s difficult to know for sure as UAH is quite variable. Of course, if UAH isn’t warming at a consistent underlying rate, we might see the trend edging up or down over a longer term, but at present I see no sign that there has been any significant change in the underlying rate, we just don’t know for sure what it is.

You can speculate about what will happen if the pause lasts, but this presupposes it exists. I see no evidence that anything unusual has happened over the last 5 and a half years in terms of trend, although the past few years have all been unusually warm and mostly above the trend. What you and Monckton see as a pause, I just see as natural variation in trends over noisy variable data.

Given how warm we are starting it’s entirely possible we’ll see an 11 year span with no trend, I don’t see much point speculating about what questions will need to be answered until it happens, anymore than it’s worth speculating what it will mean if temperatures shoot up again in the next five years.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 8:30 pm

“if UAH is showing a consistent warming rate,”

.

It ISN’T and it HASN’T.

ONLY WARMING is at El Nino events, and NO WARMING in between..

Mostly NOT warming, unless you include NATURAL El Nino events.

Absolutely ZERO signal from warming by human CO2.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 4, 2021 4:47 am

It ISN’T and it HASN’T.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 4, 2021 5:16 am

It ISN’T and it HASN’T.

So if the warming rate isn’t consistent, is it accelerating or decelerating, or what? I’m open to all possibilities, but a straight line is the simplest explanation, and I assume it until significant evidence to the contrary.

Mostly NOT warming, unless you include NATURAL El Nino events.

It would be really helpful if you could provide some statistical evidence to support this hypothesis. I’ve still no idea how you think ENSO works. To me an El Niño or La Niña is a short lived phenomenon that cases a year to be unusually warm or cold. These can cause short term blips in the trend, especially if you carefully choose the endpoints, but in the long term things level. The only way ENSO can cause a significant long term warming trend is if it’s increasing over time – either we are seeming is disproportionate number of Niños over Niñas, or the strength of El Niños are increasing over time, and if that is the case I would want to know why it’s happening. It could, for instance, be related to warming oceans.

But I think, maybe, you have a different model of how ENSO works. You seem to think that a big El Niño, like the one in 97/98, causes long or medium term warming. That after ’98 the heat stayed around and kept the world warmer than before throughout the 21st century, until another big El Niño added even more heat into the system. This could keep gong indefinitely, and gives the illusion of a steadily warming world, but in reality you see a staircase of warming.

I don’t think the latter is plausible, and to me it just seems to be what happens if you keep splitting the trend line into small sections with no regard to the rest of the graph. But even if the staircase model is correct, it’s difficult to see in the long term how it differs from constant warming.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 8:32 pm

“I see no evidence that anything unusual has happened over the last 5 and a half years in terms of trend”.

.

Let me fix that for you.

I see no evidence that anything unusual has happened over the last 50 or so years in terms of trend.

I see no evidence of warming by human released CO2

Perhaps you could point it out to me.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 4, 2021 5:28 am

I see no evidence that anything unusual has happened over the last 50 or so years in terms of trend.

We’re only talking about UAH here, because it’s the slowest warming and the only one people here trust, so there’s only 42 years available. But you are at least accepting that the trend over the last 42 years is statistically significant? That is, whatever the trend is, it’s highly unlikely to be flat over the entire period and that thewarming is not just a mirage caused by fluctuations in individual months or years.

My point in saying there’s no evidence that the last 5 years are behaving differently is that the trend over such a short period is not statistically distinguishable from the previous trend, or even a much warmer trend.

You can obsess over the possible causes all you like. But I’m only interested here in discussing the statistics. Is there a warming trend, is it uniform, did it stop 5 years 6 months ago?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2021 9:18 am

How splendidly upset Bellman is by the fact of 5 years 6 months with no global warming at all. Of course it does not wish to understand what such Pauses are a reminder of. They are a reminder that the long-run warming trend is little more than one-third of what was originally predicted, and that if one adjusts the midrange 3.7 K current prediction of ECS to correct for that overshoot one gets an ECS of little more than 1.5 K, which is not exactly planet-threatening.

PCman999
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 9:25 pm

You need a dictionary – meaning and meaningful are 2 different things. Meaningful means significant – alarmists screeching about a few years of upward trend but ignore other trends that don’t support their cause. In your own example, why did you only go back to 2016? Why not to the beginning of all the climate data, all the paleo-climate reconstructions, where modern times are significantly lower in temperature? It’s really like the alarmists are left-over hippies and their children who have “Big OIL” as a stain on their brain, and will do anything to destroy them, even if it means wrecking the environment with solar cells, wind turbines and batteries.

Bellman
Reply to  PCman999
February 4, 2021 5:36 am

Definition of meaningful

1a : having a meaning or purpose

b: full of meaning : significant

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meaningful

In your own example, why did you only go back to 2016?

It wasn’t my example. Last time I showed how you could find meaningless periods of accelerated warming going back further than the start of the Monckton Pause.

Why not to the beginning of all the climate data

Because this post is very deliberatly only talking about UAH satellite data, and that only goes back to December 1978. It’s my contention that the best way of looking at the data is to start at the beginning and look at the long term trend. You can then ask if that long term trend shows significant deviations.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2021 7:13 am

The elephant in the room you ignore is that CO2 has been rising throughout, which means it is not the “Climate Control Knob” nor is it a dangerous pollutant.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 10:22 am

You are once again splashing around in the deep end of the pool when you have previously demonstrated that you can’t swim.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 9:47 am

What is the r-squared value of your trend line?

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 3, 2021 10:05 am

It is 0.0244, in contrast to the R-squared value of 0.0002 for Mr. Monckton’s trendline.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 10:23 am

Weekly_Rise needs to learn some elementary statistics. If a trend is near zero, the R-squared will probably be near zero too.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 10:35 am

Here is an artificial series I constructed with a trend of 0:

comment image

Note that the computed R-squared value is 1 because the line of best fit falls exactly on each of the points in the series.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 3:12 pm

Weekly_rise displays its ignorance again. If a trend is near zero, the R-squared will probably be near zero. Any fool can construct an artificial dataset to show a different R-squared. Oh, wait …

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

Can you demonstrate mathematically why this is the case? I believe R-squared has little to do with the slope of the trendline and everything to do with how well the trend line fits the data. Noisy data will have a low R-squared, as well non-linear data fit with a linear trendline, regardless of the slope of the trend line.

R-squared is not a measure of statistical significance, it is a measure of goodness of fit.

Tom
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 3:59 pm

The r square calculates the percentage of variation that deviates from the average of the data that can be explained by the calculated trend.
In your example, Weekly_rise, there is no variation (since all the data points match the average), so there are no residuals.
A real data set with actual residuals will have an r square of zero when there is a zero trend (because the trend=the average, the trend cannot explain anything more than the simple average) – your example is the only exception for obvious reasons.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom
Weekly_rise
Reply to  Tom
February 3, 2021 4:10 pm

Thanks, this explanation makes sense to me. This would only be the case for a trend of exactly 0, though, would it not?

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Tom
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 9:09 pm

No, a good-fitting trendline of virtually zero slope will also naturally have a low r2 (when the residuals from the mean massively outweigh the slope of the trendline). It is telling you that the dependent variable only explains a tiny bit of the variation about the mean; and it may well have a ‘true’ slope value of zero [i.e. the observed/calculated slope is merely a sampling/random artifact of the data].

So the point is that the zero trend line in the ‘pause’ is SUPPOSED to have an r2 of zero (or about zero) because it is trying to demonstrate a LACK of a relationship between the variables (in this case – time and temperature anomaly). A zero-slope trendline = the average = zero r2.

If you are trying to demonstrate the opposite (i.e. there IS a relationship between time and temperature anomalies), the higher your r2, the better. (and you’ll have a correspondingly stronger p-value – the likelihood, based on your calculated slope and the number of independent data points, that the ‘true’ slope is actually zero).

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom
Weekly_rise
Reply to  Tom
February 4, 2021 7:04 am

Thanks, your comments have been insightful regarding the R-squared statistic. The statistic will vary with the ratio of the slope to the average distance the points fall from the line of best fit. For a given set of residuals, R-squared will shrink as the slope approaches 0.

But this reinforces the point that the R-squared statistic cannot tell us anything about the statistical significance of the trend. We could have a clearly 0-slope trend with a very low R^2 value simply as a consequence of the above. We need to perform other statistical significance tests (calculate the p-value) to determine the probability that the calculated trend is representing the underlying signal and not random noise.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 10:58 am

You said, “… the R-squared statistic cannot tell us anything about the statistical significance of the trend.”

Think about it. If the r-squared value approaches zero, that means the independent variable cannot explain or predict any of the variance in the dependent variable. Thus, there can be no statistical significance to any of the statistical parameters associated with x and y.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 4, 2021 11:13 am

Here is an artificial series with a baked in trend of 0.001 degrees per year and +/- .0001 degrees/year random variability (very low noise):

comment image

Low R-squared, high statistical significance. Here is a similar series, but with +/- 1 degree of annual variability:

comment image

Low R-squared, not statistically significant at the 95% level.

In both cases, if you had used R-squared as the sole measure of statistical significance, you would have rejected the calculated trend, despite the fact that it was significant in the first case.

I shall leave it to you to wrestle with the implications of this exercise.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 10:21 pm

They can’t both have low r^2 values when the first example is more than 100 times as large! Actually, the first example explains more than 16% of the variance in temp with changes in time. Your p-value says that it is a real trend. I would NOT have rejected it based on the ability to explain a large amount of variance.

The second r^2 value shows that only ~0.2% of the variance can be explained by changes over time. Your p-value says that it is indistinguishable from a slope of zero, which is why it has no predictive or explanatory value.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 5, 2021 6:17 am

Right, in both cases you have to bring in measures of statistical significance to determine whether the measured trend is likely just the result of random noise – the R-squared statistic on its own won’t tell you that.

Glad we have found agreement at last.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom
February 4, 2021 10:50 am

Tom
You said, “It is telling you that the dependent variable only explains …’
That should be “independent” variable.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 10:39 am

You obviously didn’t get it the first time around, so I’ll try again. Your version of Excel has a bug that is giving the wrong answer!

If the dependent variable is constant, then there is no relationship to the independent variable. [y=2] That is, the correlation (r) is, by definition, zero, and r-squared is also zero.

I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the issue of the p-value for your short-term rise to see if it has any statistical significance. With it only accounting for about 2.4% of the variance, I’d be surprised if it passes the test of significance.

I’m reminded of the old joke about giving a monkey a machine gun. It doesn’t really know what to do with it, but is still a danger to those around it. You are smart enough to be able to enter numbers into a spreadsheet, but not smart enough to know when the output is unreasonable.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 4, 2021 11:17 am

“I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the issue of the p-value for your short-term rise to see if it has any statistical significance. With it only accounting for about 2.4% of the variance, I’d be surprised if it passes the test of significance.”

I am sure that both the trend from August, 2015 and the trend from April, 2016 fail statistical significance tests. That is rather the point I’m trying to make.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 10:30 pm

I don’t think that you know what point you are trying to make. They both fail the statistical significance test because they are indistinguishable from a zero slope, which means no actual trend, where “trend” means a consistent increase or decrease over time. It is status quo! No change! No predictive value other than probably staying about the same.

If a positive 45 deg slope means one unit of increase in y for each unit of increase in x, and a negative 45 deg slope means one unit of decrease in y for each unit increase in x, what does a zero degree slope predict? No change! A hiatus.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 3:03 pm

If a trend is near zero, the R-squared will probably be near zero too.”

No. The statistical durability of a trend has nada to do with it’s magnitude.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 3, 2021 3:13 pm

If bigoilbob spent more time actually calculating trends on various data, he would realize that if there are strong fluctuations, as there are in the temperature data, and if the trend is close to zero, the R-squared will be close to zero too. I will leave it to him to work out for himself why this is so.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 3:25 pm

Yes, you are technically correct, in that the R^2 will change. I should have said so. But that is exactly why it is useless for evaluating the utility of a trend The standard error of that trend, the most important measure of trend durability, will not.

bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 3, 2021 3:28 pm

BTW, MoB, I hope that the commenters and posters who so often refer to the R^2 value of trends (you know who you are, and if you have forgotten, one of you are in this thread)) reads and heeds….

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 4, 2021 11:08 am

Your advice is of no greater value than ‘Weakly_rise.’

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 4, 2021 11:06 am

In general, the r^2 value explains or predicts the percentage of variance in the dependent variable caused by a given change in the independent variable. That is its utility! In the special case of r^2 being very small, it means there is no utility to the regression equation, which is a way of quantifying the average y-value for a particular x-value. If r^2 is effectively zero, there is no relationship!

bigoilbob
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 4, 2021 11:25 am

When the parameter is a trend, it’s useless. MoB is absolutely correct about that. Tell Mr. Middleton as well. Use the trend’s standard error instead. With modern computing machines, it’s easy to calculate.

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 3, 2021 1:13 pm

A more pertinent question is, what are the confidence intervals of any of these trend lines?

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 2:06 pm

The standard error of regression is 0.139 for the trend from April, 2016-present and 0.155 for the trend from August, 2015 to present.

Importantly, neither trend passes statistical significance tests.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 3:30 pm

Thanks for introducing a previously unknown statistical parameter to WUWT…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 11:11 am

Which means, your posited positive trend is a phantom. On the other hand, that is exactly what one would expect for a trend of zero slope as presented by Monckton.

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 2:32 pm

No one cares about this trend itself. ALL TRENDS equal to or less than a warming trend meet the requirement of informing us that we are not warming as predicted by the IPCC. In fact, even a few slightly warming trends would also qualify.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 3:58 pm

We absolutely care whether the trend we have calculated likely represents an underlying signal in the data or whether it represents random noise.

Richard M
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 5:56 pm

Lots of ways to determine if a trend is influenced by noise. E.G. remove the noise. That is not the point of this analysis.

ONCE AGAIN, and I will try to type slower. The trend itself is not the important part of this exercise. If the pause is caused by noise then it will come to an end soon enough. Why are you so worried about it?

If the pause doesn’t end and continues for years then it demonstrates we are not warming. I think that is what you are afraid will happen.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 6:25 pm

“If the pause is caused by noise then it will come to an end soon enough. Why are you so worried about it?”

I am not worrying about the pause, I’m pointing out the invalid reasoning being employed to claim there is a pause.

Richard M
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 7:20 pm

I’m pointing out the invalid reasoning being employed to claim there is a pause.

Actually, what you’ve unintentionally pointed out over and over again is you don’t understand the concept itself. You’re still worried about the trend. How often do I have to point out the analysis is a calculation of time?

Face-palm.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 9:13 am

Whine, whinge, moan, groan! It was Prof. Jones, the arch-true-believer at the “University” of East Anglia, who used to recommend that one should apply least-squares linear-regression trends to the stochastic temperature data. So that is what I have done. If Weekly_rise does not like that method, it is free to address its complaint to official clahmatawlagy. I am simply using its methods.

The usual suspects are endlessly saying that “This year was the warmest evaaah”, taking just a single data point and extrapolating from it. But when I take a period of 5 years 6 months – get that, 5 years 6 months – and point out that in all that time there has been a zerio trend in global warming, the Thermageddonites blub.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 4, 2021 11:19 am

Using least squares to estimate trends is perfectly fine as long as you establish that the calculated trend is statistically significant. In the case of the August, 2015-present trend, the regression fails significance tests, ergo the title of this post is factually incorrect.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Bellman
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 4:47 pm

Then why keep going on about it? If all you want to do is argue that the rate of warming in UAH is less than predicted, you can say that with reference to the entire data set, not just tiny bits, which have little or no relation to the actual trend.

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 6:00 pm

Well, I do agree to a point. There are lots of ways to make the same point.

From what I could tell from the previous pause this approach is easy to understand by laymen. It clearly shows we are not warming. That must be why it bugs true believers like yourself.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2021 5:48 am

Yes, that’s the point exactly. Laymen understand it, and will read into it far more than can be justified. Lord Monckton’s been doing this for a long time. Finding gimmicky nuggets that mean nothing but can be thrown to the statistically naive.

And, yes, it does bug “true believers” in science and statistics, because people do believe these stories. It’s nothing new. It’s been bugging me for decades, the way pseudo-science sells whilst real science is regarded as a conspiracy. It’s an age old problem.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2021 9:09 am

Blub, blub, boo-hoo. Puir wee Bellman is of course upset that there has been no global warming for 5 years 6 months, and that Pauses of this kind are expressions of the fact that the long-run warming trend is little more than a third of what was originally predicted.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 4, 2021 12:59 pm

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. You think I’m upset about something I think is meaningless, I think I’m not upset about it.

I’m also not upset about Venus causing the world to stop spinning, the faking of the moon landings, or ancient astronauts interfering with human civilization. I am upset that so many people believe it.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2021 7:09 am

If the takeaway for you from Monckton’s post is “we are not warming” then the post is unquestionably misleading, since the data presented cannot actually tell us if warming has stopped or not, given the noise level of the data. This is the point I’m trying to make.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 4, 2021 9:07 am

The takeaway from Monckton’s post is in the heading: there has been no global warming for 5 years 6 months.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 4, 2021 1:58 pm

Thank you for confirming that your post heading is misleading. Are you planning to correct it?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2021 9:10 am

It is always difficult to explain statistics to those who have no knowledge of the subject. However, the appearance of long Pauses is one way of illustrating the fact that the long-run rate of global warming is little more than a third of what was originally predicted.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 4, 2021 10:24 am

Really? “The warming rate is 1.37°C / century. The original prediction was almost three times that”, doesn’t seem that difficult.

The difficult bit is explaining how you derived the claimed original prediction.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2021 11:24 pm

Read IPCC 1990 and go figure.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 5, 2021 6:27 pm

“go figure” doing most of the lifting.

IPCC 1990 Policymaker Summary of Working Group I – Executive Summary

under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global-mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade);

This will result in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors;

There are many uncertainties in our predictions particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns of climate change…

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

(My emphases)

If the trend from 1991 continues, the total warming will 0.52°C by 2025, a little more than half the projected warming.

Certainly the models of over 30 years ago overestimated the short term warming, especially if you only look at the slowest warming data set. But I find it telling that Monckton of Brenchley always tries to over egg the argument, ignores all stated uncertainties, and figures out hidden warming rates, just so he can change the difference from 2 to 3 times.

It would be interesting to see him apply this scrutiny to his own past predictions.

Last edited 3 months ago by Bellman
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 12, 2021 9:45 am

If only Bellman were interested in the truth rather than the Party Line he would realize a) that IPCC in 1990 predicted 0.34 K/decade midrange medium-term anthropogenic warming; b) that only 0.2 K/decade has occurred; of which only 0.14 K/decade is anthropogenic (Wu+ 2019), c) that,. therefore, IPCC’s prediction was 2.4 times (not 3 times) what has happened in observed reality.

However, for the sake of flogging the dead horse global warming, current models (CMIP6: Meehl+ 2020) predict 3.7 K midrange equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity, though our calculations based on real-world data rather than climatology’s error in feedback analysis suggest that 1.2 K is a more realistic midrange. Thus, current projections are about 3 times what we calculate they should be.

Finally, when we talk of the midrange as our focus, as Meehl et al. did, we are implicitly acknowledging the uncertainties reflected in upper- and lower-bound predictions. However, given that the midrange prediction in current models is a threefold exaggeration, we should not be surprised to find that the bounds are threefold exaggerations also.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 3:14 pm

Every so often I publish a HadCRUT graph with the confidence intervals shown.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 4:23 pm

So why not for the UAH pause?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2021 9:06 am

If Bellman wishes to prepare a graph showing the error-bars, it is (or was until the election was stolen) a free country. Of course, showing the error bars makes the warming trend look a whole lot less exciting, which is why IPCC et hoc genus omne so seldom use error-bars in their temperature graphs.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 4, 2021 10:59 am

We don’t have the best electoral system in the world, but I wouldn’t exactly say Boris Johnson stole the election – it’s just the consequences of are FPTP system.

Here’s a graph with confidence intervals on annual data. I’ve used yearly figures to reduce the issues of auto-correlation.

Trying to get an accurate confidence interval is rather beyond me, but the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator puts the confidence intervals for this pause at around ±10°C / century. I suspect that’s too high, but even if it’s half that, it’s clear that a zero trend over less than 6 years means nothing.

20210204Pauses3.png
Last edited 3 months ago by Bellman
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 12, 2021 9:50 am

A zero trend for 5 years 6 months means a zero trend for 5 years 6 months. And according to the NOAA State of the Climate Report for 2008, 15 years or more with no warming indicates that the models are running hot: and there were 18 years 9 months with no warming until a large El Nino appeared and ended the zero trend.

John Tillman
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 10:16 am

Upon whose data does the graph rely?

The five-year downtrend from February 2016 is intact and now slanting lower.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  John Tillman
February 3, 2021 10:18 am

The data are the UAH V6 global anomalies – the same data used in Mr. Monckton’s graph.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
February 3, 2021 11:25 am

Its just that LMB knows what he is doing..

….. and you don’t.

And as temperatures continue to drop…

…. the back-calculated pause will get longer and longer. 🙂

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 3, 2021 1:15 pm

I think Lord Monckton knows exactly what he’s doing.

But I;m interested in your thoughts, just eactly what is the difference between Monckton’s and Weekly_rise’s starting points?

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 2:35 pm

Moncton’s starting point is January 2021. Nothing else will provide the information he is trying to uncover.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 4:25 pm

Everybody’s starting point is the most recent month if you are looking at any trend up to the current date – it’s where you start the actual trend that changes.

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 6:05 pm

Sorry but your description is wrong. The starting point IS the current date. The idea is to locate how far back in the past can you go and see no warming. What you are calling the “start” is actually the end point of this analysis.

That’s why I keep saying the trend itself is not the point of this effort. The length of time is the result of this analysis.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2021 6:18 am

I keep hearing things like that, and still have no idea what anyone thinks it means. If you think of a period of time, such as this “pause” period you naturally assume that the “start-point” is the earliest date of the period, because that’s how time and language works. If someone mentioned “the pause that started in 2015, I’d assume they meant this current pause, not the old “Great Pause” that started in 2015 and ended in 1997.

But it really makes no difference what you call the end points. The exercise is still the same, to find the longest possible period that matches your desired result – in this case a negative trend line,

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2021 9:05 am

Snivel, snivel! All I do is report Pauses as they occur, and point out the obvious: that long enough Pauses indicate something very wrong with official clahmatawlagy’s theories. I think it was NOAA, in its State of the Climate report of 2008, that said Pauses of 15 years or more would indicate the models had gotten something wrong. Well, that particular Pause endured for 18 years 9 months, during which one-third of our entire influence on global temperatures had occurred. We shall see how long this Pause lasts: it could be a few more months, or perhaps longer.

If only Bellman were not paid to be prejudiced, it would be able to see that working back from the present to see how long a Pause there has been is not looking for a “desired result”: it is simply asking the question how long has there been no global warming?

There’s really no point in blubbing about this. Bellman carefully avoids addressing the elephant in the room: namely, that the world has been warming over the past 30 years at little more than a third of the originally-predicted rate. That is why such long Pauses keep cropping up, even though CO2 emissions almost doubled over that 30-year period.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 4, 2021 12:51 pm

I think it was NOAA, in its State of the Climate report of 2008, that said Pauses of 15 years or more would indicate the models had gotten something wrong.

I don’t have the exact quote, but suspect they were implying that you would need a pause of at least 15 years before you had to consider if there was a problem. And in case you haven’t noticed this pause you’re reporting is less than 6 years old.

If only Bellman were not paid to be prejudiced, it would be able to see that working back from the present to see how long a Pause there has been is not looking for a “desired result”

Putting ad homenem to one side, I’m really puzzled about how looking back to find a negative trend, is not looking for a desired result. Why aren’t you wanting to find a pause? You say they’re useful to convince laymen. What would have happened if you’d looked back 5 years and 6 months and found a sharply positive trend? The goal is to find a pause, and the longest pause at that, I’m not sure how this can be anything other than the desired result.

There’s really no point in blubbing about this. Bellman carefully avoids addressing the elephant in the room: namely, that the world has been warming over the past 30 years at little more than a third of the originally-predicted rate.

What’s with this obsession with fantasizing about me crying? What with your fantasies about me in uniform, people might begin to talk.

As to this pink elephant, I’m not ignoring the question of why UAH doesn’t show as much warming as models predict, I’ve even suggested it would have been better if you focused on that claim rather than this imaginary pause, but the subject of this article is very much “the new pause” and not the models.

I’m not sure if you’re suggesting that pauses cause the warming rate to be lower, or if you think pauses are the symptom of a slower warming rate, but I don’t think either are necessarily the case. As I pointed out before, pauses (as you define them) do not necessarily reduce the warming rate. This is evident in the UAH data, so far each pause has “caused” an increase in the overall warming rate.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2021 2:00 pm

That’s a really bizarre approach that makes no sense on the face of it. Recall that my involvement in this whole discussion started by pointing out that the trend from April, 2016 to present is positive. So if Monckton were simply following a flat trend line as far back as it went, he would never have made it back to 2015.

Loydo
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 2:45 pm

I’ll take that one: nothing. This is just Monckers pushing his little ‘pause’ schtik…again. Despite the glaringly obvious fact that it is entirely statistically insignificant. Despite his ready admission there are short term fluctuations and despite his ready admission the climatic (30 year) trend is solidly on the rise.

Not at all surprising many here just lap it up as some kind of “cooling” talisman. I guess that is ultimately why he does it: cheap and nasty doubt-mongering.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Loydo
February 3, 2021 3:16 pm

O how the climate fanatics blub. Their wailing is a robust indicator that they are fearful of a lengthening Pause, because they know just how devastating the previous long Pause was to their case for pointless panic.

The truth is that the rate at which the world is warming is very considerably less than had originally been predicted.

Loydo
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 8:21 pm

Not true, but that sort of lie plays so well here in ‘Wonderland’, it’s no surprise you keep playing it.

fred250
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 8:37 pm

The UTTER DESPERATION of the climate scam sympathisers is hilarious to behold.

Well done LMB for dragging them out of their sewer, using simple trend back-calculations that are obviously beyond their ability to comprehend

La Nina, more cooling.. rapid extension of the zero trend back-calculation

ALARMISTA PANIC !! 🙂

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 8:34 pm

“I;m interested in your thoughts”

.

NO, you aren’t you are just trolling mindlessly , as is your meme.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 4, 2021 6:25 am

More mind reading. OK, let’s say I’m not remotely interested in your thoughts, but I would still like you to answer the question. I’d prefer it if you did so with regard to the actual question rather than with anther hysterical joke.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2021 11:20 am

Bellman
You asked, “what is the difference between Monckton’s and Weekly_rise’s starting points?”

Actually none. Weekly_rise has himself admitted that there is no statistical significance to either period of time. That is, they both effectively have a zero slope — no trend.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 4, 2021 12:13 pm

“Not statistically significant” ≠ “No trend.”

Abolition Man
February 3, 2021 8:59 am

A hearty “Thank you” to Lord Monckton! A question for him and the knowledgeable readers of this site. Is there a book or text that explains in greater detail the machinations of the AMO, PDO and the El Niño/La Nina cycles for inquisitive minds?
A college textbook or even a group of articles that explains the oceanic influence on weather would be a wonderful landscape to explore!

Reply to  Abolition Man
February 3, 2021 9:21 am
Last edited 3 months ago by Krishna Gans
Abolition Man
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 3, 2021 6:17 pm

Thanks, Krishna!
The best source I have found to date is Jim Steele’s book; “Landscapes and Cycles.” I’m hoping to find some works that are a little more in depth to help me wrap my head around the effects of ocean cycles on climate; something that doesn’t get talked about nearly enough!

Sara
February 3, 2021 9:04 am

So it’s going to be chilly instead of hot? How will that affect rainfall in the spring, and following that, growth of all those wildflowers I love to photograph? More of them or fewer? Just want to be prepared for any eventuality in the weather.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Sara
February 3, 2021 10:25 am

It’s already chilly. The Benighted Kingdom has just had the coldest January in a decade, and there will be chaos in Scotland and the North of England tomorrow as another foot or so of global warming falls.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 11:51 am

Well, we in NJ would gladly trade. Just cleared 26″ of “children will never know what it is” from the walks and driveway.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
February 4, 2021 7:43 am

More coming in February!

goldminor
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 1:18 pm

I would bet that spring will be delayed this year in many areas of the NH. This reminds me of April 2011 when I moved back into the mountains of Northern California. Temps were very cold and remained very cold all the way through the month of May. Local temps did not rise above 50F in May of that year, and every morning was on the edge of being iced.

fred250
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 8:39 pm

Dr Viner isn’t perchance visiting N. England / Scotland at the moment , is he? 😉

February 3, 2021 9:12 am

I wonder what mylord thinks of my thoughts, here

https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/01/26/am-i-a-climate-denier-denialist/

Bellman
February 3, 2021 9:25 am

If we were to look at the last eight years’ UAH data, the trend would be equivalent to more than 0.4 K decade–1. That is what a large El Niño – a naturally-occurring process – does to the trend from time to time.

And what do you think happens to a trend when you start with a naturally-occuring El Niño?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 3:18 pm

O how the climate extremists weep and wail when faced with yet another long period without any of the global warming from which so many of them have profiteered for so long at our expense. There are large el Ninos near both ends of the 5 years 6 months of no-warming.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 4:38 pm

Weeping and Wailing = asking a sarcastic but relevant question.

There are not large El Niños at either end of the little pause. The 2016 El Niño was either the biggest or third biggest on record, depending on index. There was a week to moderate El Niño in 2019, followed by an even weaker one at the start of 2020. Since then there’s been an emerging La Niña. If this develops you’ll be talking about 7 years of global cooling again.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 8:47 pm

Are there not LARGE naturally occurring El Ninos as the ONLY warming in the satellite era. !

“The 2016 El Niño was either the biggest or third biggest on record, depending on index.”

.

Yep, and it was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with human CO2.

“Since then there’s been an emerging La Niña”

.

Yes, it has been cooling since the La Nina started.

That is what has all you AGW collaborators in such a tizzy ! 🙂

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
February 4, 2021 6:37 am

Are there not LARGE naturally occurring El Ninos as the ONLY warming in the satellite era. !

Not sure I understand the question, but yes there are LARGE naturally occurring El Niños. No, they are not the ONLY warming in the satellite era.

Yep, and it was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with human CO2.

Didn’t say it was, though I’m not sure how you can rule it out as a possibility either.

Yes, it has been cooling since the La Nina started.

Yes, that’s the point I’m making. La Niñas cause a cool year, EL Niños cause a warmer year. I’m not sure why you feel the need to keep agreeing with me so much.

That is what has all you AGW collaborators in such a tizzy !

Flattered as I’m you think I’m part of the scientific establishment, I need to make it clear I’m not a scientist, have never collaborated on any paper. I’m just a layman with a passing interest in statistics and a little understanding of some of the science. I certainly don’t speak for anyone other than myself.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2021 8:56 am

There, there! Here’s a nice hanky to wipe away your tears.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 4, 2021 1:01 pm

Do you think this sort of comment helps your case?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 4, 2021 11:27 pm

Yes.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 5, 2021 6:02 am

I rest my case.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
February 5, 2021 11:52 am

That would give us all a rest.

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 4:27 pm

“what do you think happens to a trend when you start with a naturally-occuring El Niño?”

What’s funny is after the 2016 El Nino there were literally hundreds of articles written showing the massive warming with not a single mention of the “naturally-occuring El Niño”.

Did you also comment on all those articles? Bet you didn’t say a word. Your silence then means your comment now is disingenuous, which also means you are a dishonest person.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 5:04 pm

Were there? There was certainly interest in whether 2016 would be a record year, but I don’t recall any claiming a 0.9°C / decade warming rate based on the last 5 or 6 years. If there were I’d have certainly disagreed.

But I read very few blogs on the subject, and rarely comment on those I do. I comment on very few articles on this blog either, and often ignore some really amusing errors, but it doesn’t mean I’m being dishonest.

Last edited 3 months ago by Bellman
Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 6:08 pm

Often 5-6 articles referenced on Yahoo day after day. I’d point out the use of the El Nino was key to claiming dangerous warming and all I ever got back from the true believers was denial.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 8:43 pm

start with a naturally-occuring El Niño”

.

roflmao.. Bellhop yet again shows ZERO comprehension.

And seriously, you and your fellow AGW apologists/collaborators are the VERY LAST people to complain about using EL Ninos to create a trend.

But hey.. that’s all you got.. as you keep proving.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
February 5, 2021 8:58 am

Incidentally,

If we were to look at the last eight years’ UAH data, the trend would be equivalent to more than 0.4 K decade–1. That is what a large El Niño – a naturally-occurring process – does to the trend from time to time.

If “a large El Niño” refers to the 2015/16 one, note it happens on the left side of the graph. If it hadn’t happened the trend would be greater.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
February 6, 2021 9:49 am

Incidentally again, Lord Monkton says you can start eight years ago and get a warming rate of 4°C / century. But If you use the same procedure as he uses to determine the pause length, you would start in May 2010, and get a trend of over 4°C / century. 10 Years and 9 months.

Bellman
February 3, 2021 9:38 am

If there’s one thing that upsets true-believers in the cult of Thermageddon, it’s a Pause in global warming.

This “true-believer” isn’t upset by a pause. As someone who doesn’t want global warming I’d welcome a real pause in warming if it bought us more time.

What upsets me is seeing trend lines being tortured until it tells you what you want to believe.

By the way, does it worry you that August 2015 is now both in the first and second pause, one around 0.25°C warmer than the other? As the pause elongates there will be a longer over lap period with more months being in this dual state.

Doonman
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 11:44 am

What upsets you is the fact that in the natural world, ever increasing CO2 stops radiating additional heat into the atmosphere for months and years at a time and there is no way you can explain why. A puzzlement that shakes your religious beliefs to the core, so you make excuses instead. Lord Monckton is not wrong about this.

Bellman
Reply to  Doonman
February 3, 2021 5:09 pm

I do love it when people keep telling me what I think and what I feel.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 8:51 pm

I’m sure you don’t “think”….. there is zero evidence of that.

All you do is “feel” and right now you and your mates are obviously in a total PANIC about cooling trends coming.

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 6:12 pm

As the pause elongates there will be a longer over lap period with more months being in this dual state.

Very true. But, the difference will continue to fall. And then the two pauses will merge at the lower level. How embarrassing will that be?

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
February 3, 2021 8:50 pm

“What upsets me is seeing trend lines being tortured until it tells you what you want to believe.”

.

Yet that is EXACTLY what you and your fellow AGW collaborators do all the time.

A C Osborn
February 3, 2021 9:40 am

It is colder than it was in 1998, so I declare it must be cooling.😁

February 3, 2021 9:44 am

I figure that I confirmed that UAH v6 global lower troposphere has a very slight linear trend from May 1996 to January 2015. However, this is cherrypicked, with a century-class El Nino spike early in this period. https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1996.43/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:1996.43/to:2015 Also, the global troposphere gets spiked more by ENSO events than the global surface temperature does. Meanwhile, the global temperature dataset favored by Dr. Ryan Maue is ERA5, and his second favorite is JRA-55. They are very similar to each other. I have seen that ERA5 has slightly less degree of ENSO spikes and a slightly greater warming rate from 1979 through 2020 than HadCRUT4 has. The longest pause I was able to find in HadCRUT4 when I tried woodfortrees a few years ago, was 144 months from some month in 2002 to the previous month in 2014.

Richard M
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 3, 2021 4:35 pm

Donald, that “century-class El Nino spike” is surrounded by 4 years of La Nina conditions which completely and totally remove any influence on the trend by that El Nino. So, that was a needless effort.

We are just now starting to see some stronger La Nina effects to counter the also strong super El Nino of 2015-16. Try checking after the current La Nina ends and see what it has to say.

Just let me add that temperature trends are not very good tools when looking at noisy temperature data. We need to look at the energy changes of the total system. That would remove much of the noise. Of course, the changes would be microscopic in relative terms.

Reply to  Richard M
February 9, 2021 10:01 am

The La Ninas just before and after the 1998 spike have effect merely similar to that of two other La Nina dip events afterwards (both of them “double dip” ones, the ones of 2007-2008 / 2008-2009 and 2011-2012 / 2012-2013). One thing about the usual way of calculating linear trends, which minimizes RMS noise instead of minimizing average noise from the calculated linear trend, is that outliers (such as the 1998 spike) get extra weight in their consideration.

Reply to  Richard M
February 10, 2021 10:12 am

I just looked at some graphs of ENSO indices. The La Nina before the 1997-1998 El Nino was not a major one. It just looks major in a graph of UAH TLT starting just before then, with a least-squares best fit line that is boosted around that time range by least-squares line fitting giving extra weight to the big 1998 spike.

commieBob
February 3, 2021 9:50 am

et hoc genus omne – They’d none of them be missed. G&S

Last edited 3 months ago by commieBob
Zigmaster
February 3, 2021 9:51 am

I actually don’t think the pause does annoy true believers. If it did they wouldn’t be true believers. In their alternative world , the current year is always one of the hottest ever, the tipping point is approaching soon, and if we don’t limit our freedoms , shut down our economies and transfer heaps of money to developing countries ( like China ) we are all going to die.
The people who claim there is a pause are just deniers who not only don’t believe in the Holocaust , but think the moon landing was fake and 5G will fry ones brain. They are not like the true believers who know that these evil sceptics are stopping the world from healing.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Zigmaster
February 3, 2021 6:37 pm

Zigmaster,
Why does the transfer of heaps of money to developing countries always go through so many bureaucratic and governmental agencies that at the far end it is a mere trickle or slow leak?
As a proud, dog-faced, pony soldier I am happy to drive my stake into this hill of skepticism; they may call me a denier but I am more like an heretic in their minds!
Without skepticism there is no scientific method, nor any true science!

Steve Z
February 3, 2021 9:55 am

It looks like the highest peak was in February 2016, and the UAH temperature has stayed below that peak through December 2020, and the January 2021 data are even lower. Unless we have a sudden El Nino this month, the pause will have lasted a full 6 years.

On a lighter note, Lord Monckton should be careful about insulting bats in Yunnan. They already sent us the COVID-19 virus, with some help from the Wuhan Virology lab!

John Tillman
Reply to  Steve Z
February 3, 2021 10:20 am

Five years, ie 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Steve Z
February 3, 2021 10:31 am

… and elements of the HIV envelope-protein code spliced into the spike-protein code of the Chinese-virus genome. Don’t hold your breath till the Communist-controlled World Death Organization’s whitewash (er, investigation) team finds that out. It’s all in the peer-reviewed journals over the past five years.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Steve Z
February 3, 2021 6:41 pm

Steve Z,
Don’t ever forget that Lil’ Tony Fauxi, from the Big Pharma Mob, provided financing to the Wuhan lab for gain-of-function experiments while the Obama Regime had placed a moratorium on them as being too dangerous!

Bruce Cobb
February 3, 2021 9:58 am

This reminds me of the ancient Chinese drinking song “Six Billion Bats” which goes;

Six billion Yunnan bats in a cave,
Six billion bats in a cave
You take one out, turn it into soup,
Five billion nine hundred ninety thousand nine hundred ninety-nine
Bats in a cave

And so on.

Last edited 3 months ago by Bruce Cobb
John Tillman
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 3, 2021 11:14 am

Horseshoe bats aren’t very meaty, at just 5 to 9 grams in adults.

MarkW
Reply to  John Tillman
February 3, 2021 12:08 pm

That’s why you need 6 billion of them.

goldminor
Reply to  MarkW
February 3, 2021 1:10 pm

Even with that you are still hungry an hour later.

BobM
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 3, 2021 11:45 am

You forgot the 999 million part of it.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  BobM
February 3, 2021 11:48 am

Those got eaten.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 3, 2021 6:43 pm

Nope, they tried to take the shortcut through the wind farm again!

MarkW2
February 3, 2021 10:19 am

I’ve long wondered why statisticians don’t call this stuff out. They’re in the best possible place to question the dodgy methods used by climate science and a true Bayesian could have a field day given the way that temperatures vary and are affected by phenomena such as an El Nino.

If there was one academic field that climate scientists couldn’t call into question over what they’re claiming it would be statistics. I once pressed a professor of Bayesian statistics from the University of London over this and he had to admit that it is all very questionable.

Is there nobody who is prepared to put their head above the parapet and speak out on all of this? Have we truly reached a position where academic freedom is so easily bought out?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  MarkW2
February 3, 2021 10:38 am

MarkW2 is asking the right question. One of the many statistical dodges used by the appalling IPCC was in 2007, when they produced a graph of HadCRUD3 temperature anomalies with four trend-lines superimposed on it, starting respectively 150, 100, 50 and 25 years before 2005 and all ending in that year. Each successively-starting trend-line was steeper than the last. IPCC claimed, twice, that this indicated two things: that the rate of global warming was accelerating, and that we were to blame.

So I anonymized the underlying data and send them to Professor David Spiegelhalter, the professor of the “public understanding of risk” at Cambridge, my alma mater. I asked him whether it was legitimate to conclude from the steepening trend-lines that the overall trend was accelerating, and I pointed out that if one chose one’s trend-lines carefully enough one could use the same technique on a sine-wave and show four successively-steepening trend-lines.

He wrote back saying that he had guessed that this was about global warming, and that it was more than his job was worth to answer me. I had even offered him a fee for the analysis, but he didn’t want to touch it.

That told me all I needed to know. Academics are frit. Even the most senior ones don’t dare challenge the climate Communists. So the late Bob Carter found me another statistician, who confirmed that my analysis was correct, and was baffled by Speigelhalter’s refusal to draw the same conclusion.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 12:17 pm

Those that know dare not speak whilst ignorant and troubled children throw tantrums on TV. They’re right it’s worse than we thought.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Notanacademic
February 4, 2021 7:55 am

Greta’s tantrum the other day made me feel kind of bad for her. She really has bought into the “gloom and doom”.

Lies about CO2 and the climate are child abuse. Greta is suffering greatly from the climate change hyperbole. And we know she’s not alone.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 4, 2021 8:37 am

I agree with you respected scientists frightened to speak up for fear of losing their livelihood and children frightened of their future. Greta has been horribly used. Those using her have no conscience and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals, I wonder if her parents are amongst them.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 12:20 pm

I can’t understand Dr. Carter’s puzzlement. If a fella has a mortgage to pay he’s very likely going to want to keep his job.

MarkW2
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 3, 2021 4:42 pm

I strongly suspect the same is happening with journalists given there are some serious questions that need to be answered here, which any self-respecting investigative journalist should be very happy to look into. What a story they could uncover. So why isn’t this happening? Because they need to pay the mortgage and, as with academics, it isn’t worth risking their career over.

What a desperate state of affairs.

Abolition Man
Reply to  MarkW2
February 3, 2021 6:51 pm

MarkW2,
Respectfully disagree! Judging by the work of most urinalists today they didn’t have the intellect to make in STEM or the drive to succeed in law or business. They drifted into J-school and by the time they graduated they were completely indoctrinated into the neoMarxist paradigm and now are all in for producing the propaganda needed to reach EUtopia!

ResourceGuy
February 3, 2021 10:19 am

This is in lieu of the much delayed conversation on cycles of different length that underlie the charts and all the straight lines and UN scare projections.

rd50
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 3, 2021 11:26 am

If you want to see trends of temperature and CO2, CO2 starting measurements at Mauna Loa in 1958 to now, take a look here:comment image

John Tillman
Reply to  rd50
February 3, 2021 12:31 pm

For 32 years, from the end of WWII to the Great PDO Shift of 1977, Earth’s average temperature (to the extent it can be measured) fell despite rising CO2. Then for 29 years, it rose to coincide with still accumulating CO2. But for the rest of this century, the extent of correlation, depending upon “data” set, is ever so slight to negative.

So three tridecadal trends have been observed: negative, positive and now flat for the current interval to date.

rd50
Reply to  John Tillman
February 3, 2021 1:46 pm

I would agree with you. What is interesting is when El Nino starts we see an immediate increase in CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa. You can download this graph here:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/graph.html

At the bottom of this graph there is a slider on the left side. Use it to move toward about 2010 or so. You can then really see the increase at 2015-2016 and see that this increase is still steady.
You can then move to see similar increases at 1973, 1987, 1997. Then a return from these increases, but not yet for 2015-2016.
We have now entered La Nina. Will be interesting to see if this increase comes back.
Actually, I would like to see a graph showing CO2 in air since 1958 with ocean surface temperature since then. If this is available, I would like a reply with a link to such.
Thank you.

John Tillman
Reply to  rd50
February 3, 2021 2:09 pm

Without precisely the graph you’d like, but a discussion of the weak connection between CO2 and SST:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/jame.20032

SST basically has an upper limit under present insolation regimes, continental configuration, seafloor spreading volcanism and ice albedo. Earth of course has been cooling since the Eocene.

rd50
Reply to  John Tillman
February 3, 2021 3:47 pm

Thank you for your reply. I am not a climate scientist.
I was curious as to why there is a sudden and easily detectable increase in atmospheric CO2 with El Nino, any of them since 1958 when CO2 was measured at Mauna Loa.
With temperature measurements of surface sea level layer, we perhaps could understand that following Henry’s law this increase in air CO2 could be due to increase in the temperature of the sea level surface layer temperature.
Then when La Nina follows, the increase in air CO2 comes back, but not yet with the just started La Nina.
Certainly plausible that Henry’s law about distribution between the water/air layers could be the reason, but this may be too simple.
Thank you for your response.

n.n
February 3, 2021 11:21 am

A chaotic (e.g. “evolutionary”), system or process, including human life, is nonlinear, incompetely or insufficiently characterized, and computationally unwieldy, where we can detect regularity (i.e. stochastic) over a limited frame of reference (i.e. scientific logical domain), and infer (i.e. creative/created knowledge) patterns over a larger frame in time and space.

gbaikie
February 3, 2021 12:18 pm

“I shall continue to report the present Pause for as long as it may last. And, if we see no very strong El Niño in the next few years, it could be quite a long and telling Pause. “

It seems interesting question is when could the two pauses merge?
Granted such time may not last a long time, but it would be a moment of fun. And thereafter one can always talk about the Great Pause.

Richard M
Reply to  gbaikie
February 3, 2021 5:32 pm

This was discussed under the last post on the new pause. I think many of us do believe the pauses will merge some time after the AMO goes negative.

The lukewarmers are less likely to believe it will happen as they think CO2 is having enough of a warming effect to prevent it.

Speaking of the “Great Pause”, I first read that as the “Greta Pause”? Not sure what that would be. Maybe the blank look on her face when asked the question, “How do you explain the Great Pause?”.

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard M
ResourceGuy
February 3, 2021 12:42 pm

It’s the Existential Pause that Chuck Schumer fears.

Abolition Man
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 3, 2021 7:10 pm

Wasn’t he more concerned about the stolen erection?

goldminor
February 3, 2021 1:01 pm

Maybe we need Pause T-shirts. Something like “I brake for the Pause”, or “I couldn’t breathe, and then the Pause happened”.

jailson Andrade
February 3, 2021 1:03 pm

the lack of a super la niña after the super el niño 2015-2016, managed to keep the temperatures higher for about 5 years and should be able to moderate the fall of the moderate la niña 2020-2021 for another year, just as happened in the post super el niño of 1877-1878 that was also not followed by a super la niña, but an interesting fact is that this will interrupt the trend of post-el niño warming jumps that came occurring since the super la niña of 1973-1974, which could start a new cooling period or at least cause a long pause in global temperature.

rd50
Reply to  jailson Andrade
February 3, 2021 1:51 pm

Do you know if there is a graph showing Mauna Loa air CO2 values from 1958 to with also showing ocean surface temperature?

Richard M
Reply to  rd50
February 3, 2021 5:42 pm
rd50
Reply to  Richard M
February 3, 2021 9:09 pm

Thank you. Very interesting.

OldFogey
February 3, 2021 1:21 pm

 … in the boundary layer and in the mid troposphere – i.e., just above the ground and about six miles up, the official predictions have been 2.4 times the observed anthropogenic warming rate over the past 30 years.

Maybe I’m just a dumb old codger, but I don’t understand how to split out the “anthropogenic warming rate” from the rest of the change. Lord Christopher (or someone) can you please explain it in simple words, suitable for an old man. Thanks

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  OldFogey
February 3, 2021 3:24 pm

Delighted! Just read Wu et al. (2019), or Scafetta (2021). About 70% of the warming trend of recent decades is thought to have been anthropogenic. But there is no consensus about this in the journals. Legates et al. (2015) reported that, of 11,944 papers on climate and related topics published after peer review in the 21 years 1991-2001, only 41, or 0.3%, even went so far as to say that at least 50% of the warming of recent decades was anthropogenic. Truth to tell, we don’t really know. But we have simply adopted Wu et al for our estimates, because that is what the climate fanatics recognize as “mainstream science”.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
February 4, 2021 8:11 am

“Truth to tell, we don’t really know. But we have simply adopted Wu et al for our estimates, because that is what the climate fanatics recognize as “mainstream science”.”

It doesn’t hurt to remind people that you are just playing on the alarmist’s playing field, using their figures to debunk their claims. 🙂

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 5, 2021 11:49 am

Mr Abbott has gotten the point beautifully. We accept ad argumentum all of official clahmatawlagy except what we can prove to be nonsense: that focuses Them on addressing the main point we are making.

Joe Ebeni
February 3, 2021 3:00 pm

Can’t believe that so many here miss the POINT…it is not global warming. ohmygodthecllmateischanginganditisallmansfaultitscoldhotwetdry and it is all proof.

PCman999
February 3, 2021 9:01 pm

Actually, one could calculate a pause going all the way back to ~AD1000…

PCman999
February 3, 2021 9:07 pm

Considering that the current anomaly is about the same as 1998, the Pause is about 23 years long. And it definitely looks like a pause, as the steady rise in temps ~1975-1998 ended in the El Nino of ’99, and in spite of the carbon orgy in the 2000’s, as China, India, etc. burned their way out of poverty, temps stopped their upward trend of the past and basically ignored the ever increasing CO2 in the air.

jbs2250
February 4, 2021 2:12 am

I love this site. I cannot verify the accuracy but it seems pretty good to me. No hiding the temperature by the use of anomalies that are adjusted to meet the trend.
http://temperature.global/

Andy Pattullo
February 4, 2021 8:26 am

Pretty soon the clergy of the global warming religion will have to start adjusting down CO2 levels so as to take credit for preventing the non-existing warming.

rd50
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
February 4, 2021 4:04 pm

Sorry but not this time. CO2 is not only measured at Mauna Loa, but also at 4 or 5 other areas around the world, like Artic, Antarctic etc.. They all show the same yearly average.
And this average has been going up since the first measurements at Mauna Loa in 1958.
Even better. With the pandemic, proposals were made that CO2 would be lower! And Mann on the NPR Science Friday radio was asked about this a few weeks ago. He said YES, CO2 declined by 7%. Pure nonsense. There is a graph from “climate4you” above showing you how CO2 and temperature correlate since 1958 when CO2 was measured up to now in Mauna Loa.
So they can try adjusting as they have with temperature but it will not work with CO2.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  rd50
February 5, 2021 11:45 am

Mr Pattullo’s point remains valid. Anthropogenic radiative forcing has been rising in very nearly a straight line for 25 years: yet the warming that had been predicted is not occurring. Only about a third of it is occurring.

Donald Hanson
February 4, 2021 10:09 pm

There is no pause >>> pending temperature reading adjustments.

Giordano Milton
February 5, 2021 9:13 am

Honestly, dedicated leftists don’t really care about facts or data. It’s only about what they can get enough people to believe, and most people do not really pay attention to things like pauses and failed models. I think they believe what they read on social media and in the so-called “mainstream” press. And these channels will not allow information that conflicts with the narrative to be widely discussed.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Giordano Milton
February 5, 2021 11:48 am

Well, there are ways to make the Left pay attention. Watch this space.

%d bloggers like this: