The New Pause lengthens by three months to 5 years 10 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Now that the small La Niña that has recently ended has begun to have its effect on global temperatures, the UAH monthly global mean lower-troposphere anomalies now show a further sharp drop, lengthening the New Pause by three months, from 5 years 7 months last month to 5 years 10 months this month.

The HadCRUT4 data show no warming in the 6 years 9 months May 2014 to January 2021:

It is likely that the temperature anomalies will remain below the trend-line for another month or two, lengthening the New Pause still further. Forecasts for the rest of the year suggest that the present ENSO-neutral conditions will remain till the end of the year, with the possibility of another la Niña at the end of this year. The likelihood of El Niño conditions is thought to be remote for now.

4.6 46 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
255 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 4, 2021 10:15 pm

“lengthening the New Pause by three months, from 5 years 4 months last month to 5 years 10 months” ???

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  StuM
April 4, 2021 10:20 pm

That was my first reaction too.

BobM
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
April 4, 2021 10:29 pm

Yep.

Bindidon
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
April 6, 2021 4:22 am

Phillip Bratby

Yes, you are right too, but even after having corrected this tiny mistake, the Third Viscount still keeps somewhat disingenuous (one of his preferred words).

Why?

Simply because when you choose, for the purpose of trend calculation, a period starting with (or in front of) a very high value compared with the rest, your trend hardly could be positive.

And in the present case concerning the UAH time series, the anomaly for March 2016 was even the highest one since beginning in December 1978.

Thus no wonder that, when computing a trend starting just in front of the highest peak, your trend for June 2015 till now is, in °C / decade,

-0.01 ± 0.11

{ What anyway lacks usefulness, as the standard error is way, way higher than the trend itself. }

Would the Third Viscount have made a slightly different choice, e.g. by starting his trend computation just after the highest peak, he then would have obtained, for e.g. June 2016 till now,

+0.16 ± 0.12

Thus, to speak of any allegedly lengthened pause in this case has no meaning at all.

*
What indeed HAS a meaning is, in the context of the UAH time series, to speak of a pause between the two great ENSO signals in 1998 and 2016, by choosing, as trend calculation period, June 1998 till June 2015, for example.

This then gives

+0.01 ± 0.02

No way around such evidence, inside of UAH, of course. Other time series – those named ‘pause busters’ by most ‘Skeptic’s – might show different behavior.

*
The same remark applies of course for the HadCRUT4 time series, whose trend for June 2015 till now is

-0.18 ± 0.10

while for June 2016 till now, it becomes

+0.16 ± 0.12

J.-P. D.

KevinM
Reply to  Bindidon
April 6, 2021 10:25 am

Not sure why bindidon got downvotes here. His point is germane to the topic and his math is correct.

Bindidon
Reply to  KevinM
April 6, 2021 1:32 pm

KevinM

Thanks for the remark.

I don’t know how often you look at this place, but on average, nearly everybody publishing a meaning which differs a bit too much from that of the blog’s Nomenklatura soon is punished.

And as you have seen, the downvoter(s) is/are so incredibly stubborn that they even felt the need to downvote your remark as well.

Sounds a bit prepubescent to me.

And be sure that the Third Viscount will repeat his redundant stuff as often as needed…

So what! Who cares after all?

Rgds
J.-P. D.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bindidon
April 7, 2021 2:09 am

My oh my! If the Viscount’s “stuff” is redundant, why blub so whingeingly about it? Why not just ignore it and get a life?

Of course the trolls who infest these comments are upset that another Pause appears to be taking shape. The longer such Pauses endure, the slower the warming rate, and the farther it departs from the wildly-exaggerated predictions made by IPCC with “confidence” in 1990.

And if Bindidon really wants to take a proper look at the temperature statistics, why does he not comment on the conclusion by Pat Frank that error propagation of the models is such that all of their predictions fall within the uncertainty envelope and are accordingly meaningless?

fred250
Reply to  Bindidon
April 7, 2021 12:06 am

“Simply because when you choose, for the purpose of trend calculation, a period starting with”

.
ROFLMAO.

Showing that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND the methodology

STILL !!

Back to the dust-bin where you belong.

TRM
Reply to  Bindidon
April 7, 2021 8:37 am

From my understanding the series starts at the current month and goes backwards until the line is no longer flat (in a statistically significant way). Correct me if I’m wrong but that was the way he was doing the original 18+ year calculations and I’ve seen nothing that he’s changed the methodology.

John Adams
Reply to  StuM
April 4, 2021 10:37 pm

Very sciency

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  StuM
April 4, 2021 10:44 pm

This is climate math. You wouldn’t understand.

BenDhyani
Reply to  StuM
April 4, 2021 11:21 pm

5 years 7 months to 5 years 10 months is a lengthening by 3 months to my understanding?

The New Pause lengthens by another month to 5 years 7 months – Watts Up With That?

Last edited 5 days ago by BenDhyani
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  StuM
April 4, 2021 11:30 pm

Does it mean that because the temperature fell last month from the previous month the start of the pause can taken back an additional 3 months to July 2015 and were now in April 2021 which is 5 years and 10 months later?

It’s how a catastrophic climate change nutter would work it out.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
April 5, 2021 2:51 pm

The calculation has a simple basis. We simply ask how far back we can go in the temperature record to find a zero trend. At present it is close to 6 years.

To understand how a least-squares linear-regression trend is derived from a data series, refer to any textbook of elementary statistics.

DikranMarsupial
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 6, 2021 12:27 am
KevinM
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 6, 2021 10:34 am

For any trendless volatile time series with the a present value near the mean, start points can be selected to indicate both a positive trend or a negative trend.
Intellectual honesty requires the mathematician to justify a start point IN ADVANCE (first trusted data point, meaningful event, mean series value), then keep the same start point for future work.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  KevinM
April 6, 2021 8:58 pm

KevinM
I think that the point you are missing is that he is not terminating the time-series early, nor leaving out any data, but is simply pointing out that the slope is essentially zero from the most recent measurements, back almost six years, with contiguous data.

Considering that in the recent past there was a period of about 20 years with no obvious trend, it is worth noting that there is currently a period of about 6 years with similarly no obvious trend.

fred250
Reply to  KevinM
April 7, 2021 12:08 am

“Intellectual honesty requires the mathematician to justify a start point IN ADVANCE”

.
WRONG.

The calculation gives the starting point

No-one selects anything.

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  fred250
April 7, 2021 7:22 am

That is not correct. The writer chose when they want to talk about trends and when they don’t, so the end-point is chosen by the author.

Why is the author talking about trends now, rather than say after a strong la-nina, where for a while at least, the warming trend would seem magnified? The same game, just that “warmists” have learned not to do it (after the 1998 El Nino, where a few did worry it was the start of accelerated warming)

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  KevinM
April 7, 2021 7:26 am

Or alternatively, you could just show that the observed trend was unusual. Statistics has methods for doing this (e.g. the statistical power of the test). Of course this has been done, and it requires *at least* 17 years of data to have sufficient power for the length of a zero trend to be surprising in a statistical sense.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD016263

I wrote a basic explanation of statistical power and trend analysis here:

https://skepticalscience.com/statisticalsignificance.html

Dikran Marsupial
Reply to  Dikran Marsupial
April 8, 2021 1:58 am

LOL at the downvotes and the cogent counter-arguments that were conspicuous by their absence ;o)

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  StuM
April 4, 2021 11:30 pm

These are the adjusted months that fit the modelling requirements.

commieBob
Reply to  StuM
April 5, 2021 12:47 am

Yep. The lower the temperature goes, the longer the pause will be. If the temperature were to stay steady then the pause would just lengthen month for month.

You have to consider all the data when you’re calculating the trend line. The question is how far back you can go and still calculate a trend line with a slope of zero.

fretslider
Reply to  StuM
April 5, 2021 1:39 am

Hold that thought!

Bellman
Reply to  StuM
April 5, 2021 4:38 am

“lengthening the New Pause by three months, from 5 years 4 months last month to 5 years 10 months” ???

It’s a typo, it was 5 years 7 months last month. It was 5 years 4 months at the start of the year.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 2:52 pm

My apologies: the 4 should be a 7.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 5, 2021 8:03 pm

Corrected, now 5 years 7 months

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  StuM
April 5, 2021 2:50 pm

My apologies. For “5 years 4 months” read “5 years 7 months”.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 5, 2021 4:24 pm

The spikes and dips are “CLIMATE CHANGE!!!”.
The trend is “just weather”.
(Did I get get that right?) 😎

Philo
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 8, 2021 3:17 pm

The climbs and dips, in this case, are temperature. When the trend analysis shows 30 years of 0 trend you can consider calling it “climate change”.
You could say:”The temperature reflected in this data shows that the climate may be in a steady temperature state. The temperature trend has been zero for 30 years.”

Carry on-

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  StuM
April 5, 2021 8:25 pm

It is corrected to 5 years 7 months.

Joel O'Bryan
April 4, 2021 10:37 pm

ENSO is in La Nina phase right now, which is the “recharge” phase.
NOAA’s F10.7 forecast is still tracking with a low SC25 for the next year or so.

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

The oceans will not be soaking up SC enhanced solar energy like they did 20-30 years ago.
Colder times ahead. SC25 could still be an 1800-1825 Dalton Minimum like cycle. “Could be” is still the operative word. No one can rule it out yet, at 16 months into SC25.

All that’s missing now is a big volcano 1815 like Mt Tambora bang.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 5, 2021 3:07 am

comment image

NOAAs view on ENSO 3.4 region

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 5, 2021 3:08 am

comment image

Actual TCI based on solar UV radiation

wadesworld
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 5, 2021 7:42 am

There’s a number of potentially large volcanic eruptions brewing.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  wadesworld
April 5, 2021 9:24 am

Kidding right? Those are tiny.

donald penman
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 5, 2021 7:59 am

We had a week solar cycle after the La Nina in 2010 but we still ended up having the strongest apparent El Nino ever and I think I could have been the only one who thought this did not add up most just accepted it as an Enso thing. I will wait and see what El Nino we get in this solar cycle.

John Tillman
Reply to  donald penman
April 6, 2021 3:24 pm

SC 24 was weak, but 2015-16 Super El Niño did occur at the cycle’s peak. Super El Niño of 1997-98 however was closer to a trough than a peak, although it did follow a strong cycle.

Last edited 3 days ago by John Tillman
iflyjetzzz
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 5, 2021 7:21 pm

Not to worry. The warmunists will blame any volcanic eruption on climate change.

Tom in Toronto
April 4, 2021 10:48 pm

Just another 4 or so tenths of a degree down over the next year to go, and we can get the new pause linked up to the old one. Just in time for the US mid-term elections to sweep out the chicken little alarmunists.

Last edited 5 days ago by Tom in Toronto
Richard M
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 5, 2021 5:35 am

If the lag between SSTs (HadSST3) and UAH holds we are due for a drop of at least another .2 C by 6/21. That would get us half way there. To get the rest of the way probably requires either the PDO or AMO going negative. The chances of the PDO going negative are reasonably high.

https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend

The original pause was likely helped by the negative PDO from 2006-2014. It ended as the PDO went positive and multiple El Nino events occurred. Another negative PDO with an extended La Nina through 2021 would certainly make the alarmists nervous.

Bellman
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 5, 2021 9:25 am

By my calculations, if UAH is at -0.5°C for the next 12 months, the pause will extend back to 2011.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 12:50 pm

To add some context, -0.5°C is the coldest year in the UAH record, back in 1985. The coldest year of the old pause was -0.24°C.

Coeur de Lion
April 4, 2021 11:51 pm

Looking at the UAH temp graph, globe hasn’t warmed since 1988? 33 years? Or have I been misled?

commieBob
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
April 5, 2021 12:36 am

That’s cheating. 🙂 UAH dataset

We wouldn’t let the warmunists pick individual endpoints and say the difference between them is the trend. We would rightly call that cherry picking.

When you’re calculating the trend between two dates, you have to include all the data between those dates.

With just a quick search, I didn’t find a WUWT story on how to calculate temperature trends. The best I could find was this one that discusses some of the issues involved.

The left thinks it’s fair to lie, cheat, an misrepresent data in order to win the argument. It’s important to call that out as the corruption that it is. It’s obvious that CAGW isn’t actually about science but somebody has to stand up for truth and honesty or civilization will go down the drain.

Reply to  commieBob
April 5, 2021 1:53 am

To put the cherrypicking in perspective, here (from here) is a plot of UAH V6 trend to present. The x-axis represents the starting point, the y value the trend from that date to present. AS you see, the short trends from recent to present oscillate wildly. Earlier than 2014, they are more settled, because there is more data to establish the trend. The steep bit starting in late 2015 to late 2017 shows the effect of the fading of the 2016 El Nino from the data considered. The brief dip below zero in 2015 is where that peak has maximum effect. And yes, if you choose a starting point in those few months, you will find a “Pause”. If you go back any further, the long term warming trend will prevail.
comment image

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 5, 2021 2:02 am

The y axis is mis-labelled; it should show trend in C/century

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 5, 2021 2:06 am

Fixed

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 5, 2021 2:30 am

And yes, if you choose a starting point in those few months,
You still persiist in the mistaken assumption that the start point is “chosen”. It isn’t. It is derived mathematically by working backwards from the present.

Reply to  StuM
April 5, 2021 2:54 am

The graph shows that “mathematics”. You work back to where the back trend graph first crosses the axis. That is a method, but also a choice. You can work out the trend from any start, and from all but starting in those few months, the trend is positive. All longer term trends are warming.

Bob boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 5, 2021 5:03 am

Like starting a trend during the LIA with very sparse data?

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 5, 2021 10:33 am

Yes, since LIA

KevinM
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 6, 2021 10:41 am

I think some of them get it, they just don’t like it.
The “pause graph” is a mathematically correct calculation designed to support a deceptive thesis.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2021 2:03 am

Mr Stokes is of course upset that another Pause seems to be underway. However, as I showed last month, there is of course a rising trend between December 1978 and the present. But the longer the current Pause perists the lesser that long-run trend will be, and the farther it will depart from the monstrously-exaggerated original predictions by IPCC on which the panic about global warming was unsoundly founded.

And what does Mr Stokes have to say about the propagation of error in the models’ predictions and the consequent fact that all their predictions fall within the uncertainty envelope and are, therefore, meaningless? Or perhaps that truth is just too inconvenient for his paymasters.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 8, 2021 5:54 am

But the longer the current Pause perists the lesser that long-run trend will be…

Lesser than what?

So far each pause has increased the overall warming rate. Up to the current start of this pause the trend was 1.10°C / century, now after 5 years and 10 months of pause it’s 1.37°C / century. This is down from an all time peak during the pause of 1.38°C / century. I’m sure it will edge down a bit more the next big rise, but would be surprised if it drops bellow the pre-pause rate.

Steve Case
Reply to  StuM
April 5, 2021 3:02 am

Pretty easy to do on an Excel spread sheet.

Bellman
Reply to  StuM
April 5, 2021 5:08 am

You still persiist in the mistaken assumption that the start point is “chosen”.

It isn’t. It is derived mathematically by working backwards from the present.

And some here still persist on the notion that calculating the best starting date to make you point is not cherry-picking.

I can just as easily derive mathematically the best start date to present a fast warming period, working backwards from the present. E.g. since June 2010 UAH has been warming at a rate of over 0.4°C / decade. A period of 9 years and 10 months. It still doesn’t make it a meaningful statistic.

Last edited 5 days ago by Bellman
BobM
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 10:07 am

But neither is starting at the bottom of the LIA for the “average” temp. Similarly, though the 1979 start point for satellite temps is when the earliest data was produced, it turns out to have been another low point of the 70’s cool period. In both cases, the natural warming afterward is to be expected and desired, not used to anchor an alarmist talking point.

Bellman
Reply to  BobM
April 5, 2021 12:13 pm

1979 is not the low point of the 70s. In HadCRUT it is the 2nd warmest year in the 70s, and was the 4th warmest year since 1850 up to that point.

Who, at the time, expected temperatures to rise after the 1970s? I’ve only seen those arguing that increased CO2 would cause more warming, others expected temperatures to naturally fall, some even arguing we were heading for another LIA.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  BobM
April 5, 2021 4:37 pm

1976 satellite era, they started from 1979 because it was colder than 1976.

Lrp
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 10:36 am

Isn’t cherrypicking at the foundation of climate change industry? Why complain when others use it?

Bellman
Reply to  Lrp
April 5, 2021 12:59 pm

Any comparable examples of cherry-picking?

Lord Monckton got very upset when the IPCC produced a graph showing 25 and 50 year trends and suggested it showed accelerated warming. He called it the “end-point fallacy” and suggested you could get any trend you liked by carefully choosing your starting points. I agree it doesn’t make sense to compare different lengths of trend and talk about acceleration, but I find it difficult to see why choosing a 25 year trend is more of a problem than choosing a 5 year 10 month trend.

Lrp
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 2:17 pm

Yes, 25 and 50 years trends are also examples of cherrypicking, especially when using adjusted temperatures data. All Mr. Monckton is doing is evidencing a cooling trend and this seems to upset you.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 12:19 pm

The article is about how long it has been a PAUSE from today going back in time.

It is that simple Nick and Bellman.

Bellman
Reply to  Sunsettommy
April 5, 2021 1:00 pm

Yes, “that simple”. So simple it’s meaningless.

Lrp
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 2:18 pm

This is an idiotic comment dude; you’re arguing with the facts.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 2:59 pm

How the paid trolls whine when global temperature fails to rise for years and years on end. IPCC in 1990 predicted medium-term warming at a rate equivalent to 0.34 K/decade, but only 0.2 K/decade has been observed since then, of which only 0.14 K/decade is anthropogenic. Most scientists whose original predictions had proven overstated by a factor 2.4 in the medium term would not only revise those medium-term predictions sharply downward, as I and other IPCC expert reviewers compelled it to do in 2013, but also to revise its longer-term, ECS predictions downward. But IPCC dared not do that, or it would have become immediately apparent to all that there was not going to be anything like enough anthropogenic global warming to justify the continued existence of IPCC. In 2013 IPCC predicted 3.2 K warming by doubled CO2 (not in the main text, but in the appendices). Divide that by 2.4 and you get only 1.3 K ECS – which is in the right ballpark.

kwinterkorn
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 5, 2021 3:58 pm

Agree.

The key point is to keep in mind that CO2 continues to rise and the computer models say that means that the temp rises should be accelerating as the heat “budget” of the Earth grows apace. But the warming acceleration that transpired from the 1970’s to the 1980’s evaporated long ago.

So, it is fair to point out that as CO2 levels continue to hit record highs, the temps are flat, as Lord Monckton has done. So little warming, if any, now for decades, and none in the last several years.

Now the question is begged: if no warming, why not? The warmist argument unravels if they admit the dominance of non-CO2 factors, whatever they be.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 5, 2021 4:43 pm

How the paid trolls whine when global temperature fails to rise for years and years on end. IPCC in 1990 predicted medium-term warming at a rate equivalent to 0.34 K/decade, but only 0.2 K/decade has been observed since then, of which only 0.14 K/decade is anthropogenic

I would like to see you prove that bolded bit of your statement, theres no proof whatsoever that the warming is human produced, just more luke-warmer bollocks.

Last edited 4 days ago by Gary Ashe
Mike
Reply to  Gary Ashe
April 5, 2021 11:08 pm

” theres no proof whatsoever that the warming is human produced, just more luke-warmer bollocks.”

Right on brother! No evidence AT ALL. Just speculation talked about as if it was a proven fact. (and of course it will and can NEVER be proven or disproven even if the ”GAT” falls for 50 years but will continue to be discussed as if a fact – forever) Not very sciencey is it?

Last edited 4 days ago by Mike
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Gary Ashe
April 7, 2021 1:58 am

The evidence that 70% of observed warming is anthropogenic is in Wu et al. 2019, and in Scafetta et al. 2021. As regular readers of this column will know, my approach is to adopt ad argumentum everything in official climatology except what I can prove to be wrong. That minimizes the scope for disagreement and encourages official climatology to focus on those points at which it has erred.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 8, 2021 6:46 am

Could you provide the titles or links to these two papers?

Is the 70% a conclusion of the two, or is it one of these cases where you need to closely examine their entrails to see what they really mean?

Given your aim to adopt “everything in official climatology except what I can prove to be wrong”, are you sure these two papers are not disputed or contradicted by other papers?

KevinM
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 6, 2021 10:49 am

I’m no paid troll, I think global warming is probably beneficial and I believe climate scientists have shamefully maladjusted their historical data. I’m also a career statistician. If the purpose of your chart is to arm fellow WUWT readers with a talking point, then you are setting them up to look like fools when they present it as disproof of a warming trend to someone familiar with math.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  KevinM
April 7, 2021 1:54 am

KevinM is evidently not a very competent statistician, or he would not have made snide and unwarrantable assumptions about my purpose in deriving – accurately, whether he likes it or not – the zero trend in global warming that now approaches six or seven years in length.

It is possible – but by no means certain, given the stochasticity of temperature change – that the present pause may lengthen somewhat. If so, the effect – as any competent statistician will be able to explain to KevinM – will be to reduce by little and little the long-run trend.

If KevinM were to consult a competent statistician he would find that due to propagation of error the entire interval of model-predicted future warming falls within the uncertainty envelope and is, therefore, statistically meaningless (see the paper on the subject by Pat Frank, a competent statistician).

Now, given the egregious expense to which the climate Communists are subjecting the West, there is a subject that any competent statistician would rightly complain about. But, by contrast with a competent statistician, KevinM invents a purely fictional consideration and then foolishly draws nonsensical conclusions therefrom.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 3:28 pm

The “meaning” is to highlight that in spite of the inexorable rise in CO2 over that same term, the temperature refuses to cooperate, amply demonstrating that CO2 is NOT the control knob for global temperatures.

Mike
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 5, 2021 11:10 pm

100%

Last edited 4 days ago by Mike
Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 8:05 pm

It must be meaningful since you can’t dispute it.

Snicker……

Bellman
Reply to  Sunsettommy
April 6, 2021 8:03 am

I’ve been disputing it ever since Lord Monckton first noticed it back in January. I disputed the old, slightly more meaningful, pause of 5 years ago.

I don’t dispute that it’s possible to find a flat line and call it a pause, I dispute that this has any statistical or physical meaning.

paul courtney
Reply to  Bellman
April 6, 2021 10:31 am

Mr. Bellman: If the “start date” is today, and you can go back to a point where the trend line is zero, it shows that a stretch of time (during which CO2 increased in atmosphere) shows no warming, contrary to AGW theory. Do you get that? That is what gives it meaning.
IF the start day is the present, the start day has not been “chosen” to show a trend. Everybody seems to agree that if you choose two dates you can show a trend, but Monckton is not “choosing” the start day, it’s always “the present”. Do you get it now? Or are you just trying to compete with Mr. Stokes for the “Most Tendentiously Obtuse” comment of the month?

Bellman
Reply to  paul courtney
April 6, 2021 1:27 pm

If the “start date” is today, and you can go back to a point where the trend line is zero, it shows that a stretch of time (during which CO2 increased in atmosphere) shows no warming…

But that’s what it doesn’t show. What it shows is a zero trend, which is just the best guess of what the trend might be. You cannot know for certain what the actual trend is, because all the points are variable, some are above the actual trend some below it, and where those random fluctuations are during the trend will change what the reported trend will be. For this reason you have to look at the uncertainties in any trend. To show that the trend is probably positive you have to have sufficient data to show that if there was no trend it would be unlikely that you would have seen the positive trend. That’s what statistically significant means.

The same is true when you have an apparent zero or sub zero trend. If the uncertainties are big it’s possible that even if the trend was unchanged, or had accelerated there is still a good chance you would have seen the zero trend.

Over this short period the uncertainties are huge, especially once autocorrelation is taken into account. The apparent trend might be zero, but the real trend could easily be plus or minus 5C / century or more. 

But it gets worse, because the uncertainty calculations are based on the assumption that the data is randomly chosen. There should be no reason to suppose data at one part of the period is more likely to be higher than the trend or lower. But that’s not the case here, because Lord Monckton has explicitly chosen a period that gives sub zero trend, which means it probably starts (chronologically speaking) with higher values and ends with lower values, and this self selection makes any uncertainty calculations are worthless. It’s much more likely that the apparent trend will be too low, than that it will be too high.

IF the start day is the present, the start day has not been “chosen” to show a trend.”

It really doesn’t matter if you call the earliest date of the trend the start or end point, you are still choosing to start (or end if you prefer) on a date that establishes the trend you want. I would also argue that the other point, i.e. the present day is still a type of choice. He chooses to report on the pause today knowing that it exists. Between the start of the last pause and reporting on this one, we didn’t have monthly articles pointing out that there was no pause. 

… but Monckton is not “choosing” the start day, it’s always “the present”.

Except if it’s always “the present” what happened to the old pause? It doesn’t extend to “the present”, so by that logic it doesn’t exist. Yet Monckton and others here still keep going on about it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
April 6, 2021 9:12 pm

The apparent trend might be zero, but the real trend could easily be plus or minus 5C / century or more.

On what do you base your claim that the ‘real trend’ could be as much or more than 5C/century when weekly_rise has demonstrated that the statistical significance test indicates that the null hypothesis should be accepted?

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 7, 2021 3:05 am

1. You don’t accept a null-hypothesis. You either reject it or don’t reject it.
2. What is the null-hypothesis here? Usually it would be that there has been no trend, because you are trying to show there has been a change. But here you are trying to show there has been no change so you cannot use no change as the null. I would assume, if you are claiming a pause means a deviation from the previous warming trend you should at least have to show the pause was significantly different from the previous trend.
3. I based the 5C figure on the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator. This actually shows a 2σ value of over 8C / century, but some might say this is too high, so I played safe. I prefer not to do my own autocorrelation calculations.

paul courtney
Reply to  Bellman
April 7, 2021 12:03 pm

Mr. Bellman: A good try, but Stokes still wins the prize. When a temp rise broke the zero trend in 2016, “Monckton and others here” acknowledged the “pause” ended, right? By your thinking, they refused to acknowledge that by trying to pick new start dates and arguing that the pause was still on, which would be cherry picking. That’s not what happened, though, is it? No, it didn’t happen because Monckton didn’t change the start date. The start date “moves” with time. But I think I’m swinging and no chips are flying.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
April 6, 2021 9:18 pm

If someone had been lost in the wilderness without food, and a reporter asked him in the ambulance how long he went without eating, it would be appropriate to count from that point back to when he had his last food. That isn’t cherry picking, it is simply responding accurately to a question. The ‘trend’ for food consumption during that interval would be zero.

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 8, 2021 6:21 pm

Statistics don’t work like that.

The start point for this zero trend keeps changing, that wouldn’t happen if there was a specific date I stopped eating. I couldn’t say I haven’t eaten since Monday, but if you’d asked me yesterday the answer would have been since Tuesday.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
April 7, 2021 12:15 am

“I’ve been disputing it”

NO bellhop, you have been showing that :

a) you DO NOT UNDERSTAND and

b) you don’t like the result

You have said absolutely NOTHING to dispute the reality and accuracy of the calculation

Diddums !!

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
April 8, 2021 5:30 am

Thanks for reminding me. Here are my predictions as to where the pause will be next month

April Range     Pause Start  Pause Length
----------------------------------------------------------
+0.40 - +0.65   Aug 2015     5 Years 9 Months
+0.32 - +0.39   Jul 2015     5 Years 10 Months 
+0.20 - +0.31   Jun 2015     5 Years 11 Months
-0.09 - +0.19   May 2015     6 Years 0 Months
-0.28 - -0.09   Apr 2015     6 Years 1 Month
-0.49 - -0.29   Mar 2015     6 Years 2 Months
-0.57 - -0.50   Feb 2015     6 Years 3 Months
-0.71 - -0.58   Jan 2015     6 Years 4 Months

I expect next month will see the pause celebrate at least it’s 6th birthday.

If you disagree with my understanding of Lord Monckton’s methods, feel free to corrrect my predictions.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
April 7, 2021 12:13 am

“So simple it’s meaningless.”

.
Just like your MORONIC comments

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
April 7, 2021 12:12 am

Showing why you never got past being a lowly bellhop in a backstreet hotel.

So funny that you STILL keep digghing, despite so many wrong rooms.

Bindidon
Reply to  StuM
April 7, 2021 1:05 pm

StuM

” It is derived mathematically by working backwards from the present.”

Oh Noes?!
Howe is it possible to write such an ignorant nonsense?

The Third Viscount himself said: I looked backwards until I found the first zero trend!!!

And that regardless what the trend was due to!

Look at

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/04/the-new-pause-lengthens-by-three-months-to-5-years-10-months/#comment-3220544

and try to understand the comment better than the Third Viscount (and his gullible followers like fred250) did.

That is soo simple to understand…

J.-P. D.

MarkW2
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 5, 2021 3:26 am

It’s actually much easier than that — all you have to do is use a moving average. A blunt instrument, perhaps, but a simple way to see trends more easily. A moving average will show the trend flattening very nicely.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW2
April 5, 2021 4:56 am

Depends on your time frame.

A 20 year moving average is pretty close to a straight line.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 4:59 am

Try again, with the correct size graph.

20210405wuwt1.png
Last edited 5 days ago by Bellman
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 3:00 pm

Somebody has stretched the y axis.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 5, 2021 3:25 pm

The y axis can be any scale you want. It doesn’t show the trend flattening “very nicely”.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 3:25 pm

Three tenths of a degree over two and a half decades? Egad, we’re all doomed!! /sarc

Bellman
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 5, 2021 4:16 pm

Very much in line with the underlying linear trend across the entire UAH set. No sign of it flattening out very nicely, no sign of anything except minor deviations from a straight line.

20210504wuwt5.png
John Tillman
Reply to  Bellman
April 6, 2021 10:29 am

Start in 1997 instead of 1979. Little or no warming for 24 years under steadily rising plant food is meaningful.

Bellman
Reply to  John Tillman
April 6, 2021 10:51 am

Start in 1997, just behind that big ol’ El Niño? Certainly.

Trend is 1.24°C / century, compared with the overall trend of 1.37°C / century.

20210406wuwt1.png
fred250
Reply to  Bellman
April 7, 2021 12:21 am

Yep ALWAYS those El Ninos

Its all you have bellhop

ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of any human causation..

No warming between the 1979/80 El Nino and the 1998 El Nino

comment image

And no warming between the 1998 and 2015 El Ninos

comment image

But you KNEW THAT didn’t you,

ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of any human causation..

And absolutely no evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Back to the lugage, bellhop !!!

commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 5, 2021 4:35 am

You’re absolutely right, we should go back to the Cretaceous. Yes, I am indeed employing reductio ad absurdum, thanks for asking.

Bob boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 5, 2021 5:02 am

Unless you take it all the way back to the 30s or even further back to the MWP or Holocene optimum, in which case a cooling trend.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bob boder
April 6, 2021 10:32 am

Earth has been in a cooling trend since the Eocene. Be grateful for the brief, slight respite we’ve enjoyed for the past 11 millennia.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 5, 2021 5:48 am

How do you know these squiggles were caused by carbon dioxide?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 5, 2021 4:31 pm

A tree ring reader told them so?

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 5, 2021 4:46 pm

They don’t, its all magical thinking.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  commieBob
April 5, 2021 3:11 am

If you have Excel you can use the =LINEST() function to calculate the linear trend using regression. Load the UAH data onto a spreadsheet (use the ‘text-to-columns’ wizard in the ‘Data’ tab); place the period you are interested in inside the formula’s brackets and multiply it by the period you need. In this case Lord M has chosen to use a per century scale, so you would multiply your formula by 1200. The final formula would look like this:

=LINEST(‘cells with data’)*1200

bigoilbob
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 5, 2021 5:13 am

Been doing this for years. You can also use 2 x axes, one with date, one with date^2, to find acceleration of sea levels. And with temps you can use the normdist function and the trend and it’s standard error from linest to find the chance that your trend is qualitatively wrong, i.e. down instead of up or visa versa.

Don’t even need to pay for excel. It works just as well and easily for free in OpenOffice

Last edited 5 days ago by bigoilbob
bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 6:24 am

A “too late to edit in” adder. These tools can also be used to shut down the “Bbbbuttt, the individual data points are IMPRECISE”. Any error banded data can be input, and, either by using the statistical laws that explain how the standard errors of trends can be increased with distributed data input, or just by flooding the zone with hundreds of thousands of randomly sampled inputs, and evaluating how they change the range of outputs, you can see how important these data “errors” actually are. Spoiler alert, for climactic temps and sea levels, for statistically/physically significant time periods, practically not at all.

Sorry “error” whiners. It’s a fact. It’s also a fact that correlating these “errors” HURTS your claim of unacceptable output trend dispersion. Your choices are positive and no correlation, and positive correlation REDUCES the standard errors of trends….

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 7, 2021 12:21 am

A monkey with a ruler.. is still a monkey !!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  commieBob
April 5, 2021 4:54 am

The real point is not the absolute value of the trend, but is it following the CO2 ppm increase. If it is not following CO2, then CO2 cannot be considered to be a “control knob” for temperature. The conclusion then follows that we are spending trillions on something that has no meaning!

John V. Wright
April 5, 2021 12:08 am

Yes, we know about the pause – it’s been all over the BBC for weeks now. Oh, er, hang on…

griff
April 5, 2021 12:14 am

The UAH ‘inferred’ measurements are frankly so tweaked, indirect and adjusted as to be useless.

Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 4:05 am

My impression is, your opinion / knowledge is not adjusted and frankly tweaked 😀

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 4:42 am

And your evidence for that is………………..

fretslider
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 5:57 am

so tweaked…

Classic case of projection.

When all the people you have followed – like Mann, Marcott, Gergis and all the others – habitually torture data into shape, I suppose you think everybody else fiddles it, too.



Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 7:31 am

Come on guys…only minus 16 for the griffter?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Anti-griff
April 5, 2021 8:01 am

18
Doing my part

Lrp
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 5, 2021 10:40 am

Griff’s wining the dumbest comments contest by a long shot

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Anti-griff
April 5, 2021 10:49 am

It should be minus 100.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 6, 2021 9:21 pm

Its getting close at -56. I think that is some kind of record!

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 7:57 am

“..The UAH ‘inferred’ measurements are frankly so tweaked, indirect and adjusted as to be useless…”

Griff, if you are unable or unwilling to produce evidence to support your claim, others and myself at this site have no choice but to conclude that you are lying. Psychology provides us with some possible clues about the reasons why you have this need to lie….

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LYING…

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128012505000021

“..Lies are told for one of two reasons: either the deceptive person believes they have more to gain from lying than from telling the truth; or the deceptive person is incapable of discerning what the truth is, either temporarily or owing to some permanent mental defect. Lies may be divided into two distinct motivational categories: prosocial lies that are constructed to benefit others; and antisocial lies that are selfish…”

In particular, look at the last sentence in the quote above. Do you lie to support others (climate alarmist scientists and activists), or is it because you have an emotional need to be antisocial at this website?

Griff, I will post another comment that retracts this one if you can produce your evidence which adequately supports your claim.

Lrp
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 5, 2021 10:45 am

You’ll be long waiting; make yourself comfortable

Komeradecube
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 5, 2021 11:21 am

griff is paid to lie.

Rich Davis
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 5, 2021 1:27 pm

“ owing to some permanent mental defect.”

There you have it.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 8:02 am

Griff
From this comment I can now infer that you are against adjustments to the temperature record?

Lrp
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 10:43 am

And on you go, undaunted by knowledge, data, or basic common sense, complaining about the mainstay of climate alarmism

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 12:25 pm

Yet you can’t back your malicious claim at all……, try it, you would IMPRESS me if you could do it, but then again it could cause your head to explode!

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 3:04 pm

Puir wee Griff has had his pay for writing snide comments here cut on grounds of ineffectiveness: hence the even sourer tone than usual. Of course, if he’d prefer not to use UAH, with its 5 years and 10 months of pause in global temperature, we can use HadCRUT4 instead. But that shows 6 years 9 months’ pause – which is perhaps not what Griff and his paymasters would want. Another pay cut coming, I reckon …

Gunga Din
Reply to  griff
April 5, 2021 4:36 pm

Griff complaining about measurements being tweaked, indirect and adjusted as to be useless?!
Did he never hear of Hansen and Gavin?

fred250
Reply to  griff
April 7, 2021 12:22 am

ZERO EVIDENCE from griff.. as always

You are making a JOKE of yourself and the whole AGW farce, little boy. !

SAMURAI
April 5, 2021 1:11 am

Lord Moncton-san:

There are currently 3 ENSO SST models (including one NOAA model) predicting a new double-dip La Niña cycle will restart at the end of this year.

ENSO SST 1 & 2 have plummeted in the past couple of weeks and very cold waters have formed off the coasts of Peru and Ecuador adding credence to this possibility:

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/

Double-dip multi-year La Niña cycles are a fairly common phenomenon, so there is certainly a real possibility of one happening again this year.

it’s hilarious the MSM hasn’t mentioned the global temperature anomaly is now -0.01C, especially when Democrats’ and the MSM are pushing a new $2.2 trillion CAGW-mitigation bill (AOC thinks it should be $10 trillion)..

Western Civilization seems to be moving from its glorious maxim of Cogito, ergo sum, to the absurd childish belief of Sentio, ergo est….

SAMURAI
Reply to  SAMURAI
April 5, 2021 1:48 am

I apologize for the typo… I Tried to correct to Monckton, but, alas, too late..

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  SAMURAI
April 5, 2021 3:07 pm

Samurai-sensei – certainly it looks as though there is a good possibility of a renewed la Nina by the end of this year. But no one seems very good at predicting these events, and I am certainly no expert at it. I have some grounds – not yet verified by experiment – for hypothesizing that crustal deformation in the active tectonic zone Nino 3-4, caused by gravitational variability arising chiefly from lunar perigee and apogee, may be the chief driver of El Nino/La Nina oscillations.

Big Al
April 5, 2021 1:12 am

Looks like the little La Nina has just entered the building again.comment image
It is possible that the La Nina will be around for a bit longer,

Richard M
Reply to  Big Al
April 5, 2021 6:25 am

In order to provide some additional context you need to look at what is going on below the surface of the ocean.
comment image

If that warm blob continues to move east then it is unlikely La Nina will survive. Another possibility is the combination of the upwelling cold water and warm undercurrent will lead to neutral conditions over the summer and La Nina will take hold next fall.

Last edited 5 days ago by Richard M
Big Al
April 5, 2021 1:19 am

Global Ocean Temperature since Jan 2016
The graph below is from the http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Screenshot 2021-04-05 201709.png
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Big Al
April 5, 2021 7:15 am

What??? . . . you mean to tell me NOAA is publishing data contrary to the AGW meme?

How dare they!

Lrp
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 5, 2021 10:48 am

Just carelessness

Sören F
Reply to  Big Al
April 5, 2021 9:26 am

Thanks, could you link to it more precisely?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Big Al
April 5, 2021 3:08 pm

I wonder if Big Al would be able to give me a link to the most interesting ocean-temperature graph he has posted. I cannot find it at NOAA’s website (which is not very well indexed).

John Tillman
Reply to  Big Al
April 6, 2021 10:44 am

Same trend as for the troposphere since 2015-16 Super El Niño.

RickWill
April 5, 2021 1:52 am

There is zero trend. The keepers of the data sets are running out of options to justify cooling the past.

UAH has nothing to do with surface temperature. It was months behind actual surface temperature in showing the current La Nina phase.

I just checked – yep all tropical warm still regulating to 30C:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/04/04/0500Z/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-266.46,-8.77,376/loc=59.176,-3.281
Although the spread of warm pools is down from a week ago. Still waiting for any warm pool in the Atlantic to get to 30C.

TheFinalNail
April 5, 2021 2:40 am

There are currently 508 individual UAH_TLT monthly values in total, spanning Dec 1978 – Mar 2021. 5 years and 10 months is 70 months in total. So, running concurrently, there are a total of 439 full 70-month periods in the record, starting with Dec 1978 – Sep 1984 and ending with the latest one, highlighted by Lord M above.

Calculating the trends for all of these consecutive 70-month periods using Excel (LINEST function) I find that there are a total of 170 individual 70-month periods where the trend is 0.0 C/Century or below.

Notwithstanding, the warming trend in UAH_TLT over the whole 508-month period is +1.4C/century. Relatively short periods of zero warming or cooling are very common in UAH_TLT and tend to have relatively little impact on the overall warming trend.

bigoilbob
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 5, 2021 5:28 am

And the 508 month trend is, statistically, a keeper. It has a 95% chance of being +/- 0.13 deg/century of it’s expected value. And the chance of its actually being flat or down is ~ 6.2E-98. Right at the calculation boundaries of my engineering quality computing machine…

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 7:23 am

bigoilbob,
Not to quibble with your first and second sentence conclusions, but your third sentence must be wrong. Nothing physical can be determined to 10 parts in 1E-98 precision . . . it has everything to do with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Last edited 5 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
bigoilbob
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 5, 2021 7:28 am

Nothing physical can be determined to 10 parts in 1E-98 precision”

It speaks to the chance that the trend is qualitatively wrong. The 95% range of the trend, also included in this WUWT post, does so as well.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 7:38 am

And the difference between +/- 0.5% precision in probability and +/- .05E-98 precision in probability is . . .

bigoilbob
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 5, 2021 9:06 am

“And the difference between +/- 0.5% precision in probability and +/- .05E-98 precision in probability is . . .”

Wut? Tell me more about this Bigfoot +/- 0.5% “precision”. Given discrete data points, there is no “precision” in probability (i.e. the standard error of the trend under discussion). It is what it is.

And since the CHANGE in the standard error of the trend under discussion is quite insensitive to even input data distributed at ranges well over an order of magnitude higher than possible, then it too results in standard errors too small to bother with.

Last edited 5 days ago by bigoilbob
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 1:05 pm

bigoilbob,

Ask and ye shall receive.

At 5:28 am you posted above “It has a 95% chance of being +/- 0.13 deg/century of it’s expected value.”

That is mathematically interpreted, via consideration of what “rounding off” is, to mean there is a 94.5000 to 95.5000- chance of being 0.13 deg/century of its expected value. Equivalent to +/- 0.5% in absolute precision of the stated “95%” chance you claimed.

You call it “Bigfoot” . . . I call it mathematics and understanding of significant figures associated with such.

As but one example, the SD about a trend line under discussion could be stated to be 1%, 1.4%, 1.35%, 1.348%, or 1.3475%, each indicating a different precision in mathematical determination of the same “1%” SD.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 5, 2021 1:22 pm

That is mathematically interpreted, via consideration of what “rounding off” is, to mean there is a 94.5000 to 95.5000- chance of being 0.13 deg/century of its expected value. Equivalent to +/- 0.5% in absolute precision of the stated “95%” chance you claimed.”

No, it’s not. A 95% chance of a value being between 2 other values is EXACTLY a 95% chance, given the statistical laws being invoked. You have gone into faux dementsia when you begin thinking about the error values of probabilities using discrete data. Even with continuous data each with different ranges, and even with heads and tails on their probability distributions, this value can be EXACTLY calculated to the calculation limits of your computing machine. You not liking the data, or how it’s distributed is not my point.

BTW, who gives a flying **** whether my TINY range is at 94.5% or 95.5% probability distance from 0.137 deg/century? Cheech said it best, after unsuccessfully trying to figure out his drug profits on a clunky circa 1980’s calculator. He finally threw it from the ice cream truck, with a cry of “**** IT, WE’RE RICH!”.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 7, 2021 12:28 am

Such a TINY, MEANINGLESS and TOTALLY NATURAL warming

since the COLDEST period since 1900.

after a sharper rise out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

THANK GOODNESS for that minuscule natural warming. !!

Meab
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 9:37 am

Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Any trend’s “expected value” depends on the underlying conditions that influnce that trend remaining consistent over the trend. For example, if the temperature trend is influenced by the ENSO (or PDO), and most of that trend was measured with El Nino conditions predominating, but ENSO (or PDO) conditions recently changed, you can no longer claim that the trend is an accurate predictor of the future. The past trend could be absolutely useless to predict the future. That would be like saying that over the last decade the Tampa Bay Buccaneers were on a trend that indicated middling performance up to and including 2019 so we could have confidently predicted that they would also be middling in 2020 without considering the recent change in their roster – Tom Brady and Leonard Fournette’s influence.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Meab
April 5, 2021 9:50 am

Feel free to make the case that ENSO trends (none of which actually produce energy) haven’t balanced out over the last 41 years – usually with each occurrence at a higher level. Or for that matter, any other of the usual “natural” combination of widgits used to explain away this historic, statistically rock solid, rate of temp increase. I am speaking of the data, period, and the fact that no one here should be posting here without first learning how to do, and then doing, the DD of FinalNail.

Your wheeled goal posting is just that….

Last edited 5 days ago by bigoilbob
meab
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 4:38 pm

comment image

The only times that the *global* surface temperature (land and ocean) went up significantly during the last 40 years was during El Nino. The only times it went down significantly was during La Nina. Since it has net gone up, that means that ENSO either did NOT balance out, or it did but there’s one or more external drivers of surface temperatures. But CO2 isn’t a good candidate for the only external driver as the CO2 concentration increased during the last 40 years by 22% in a monotonically increasing fashion but global surface temps didn’t follow the CO2 concentration trend, not at all, they precisely followed the ENSO.

If you had half a brain, BigBoob, that would tell you something.

bigoilbob
Reply to  meab
April 5, 2021 6:12 pm

The only times that the *global* surface temperature (land and ocean) went up significantly during the last 40 years was during El Nino. The only times it went down significantly was during La Nina.”

Nope. Looking at 41+ years of UAH6 data, and the total of the strong and very strong ENSO periods, the ENSO trend (both El Nino and La Nina) was for ~1.34 deg/century, with a standard error of ~0.12 deg/century. During non Enso periods the total trend was for 1.40 deg/century, with a standard error of ~0.07 deg/century.

This tells us that:

  1. Temperatures were increasing during both ENSO and non ENSO periods. A.k.a. all of the time.
  2. There is a ~67% chance that the trends are, in fact, identical.

Pretty good “balance” I believe…

https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 7:01 pm
  1. “There is a ~67% chance that the trends are, in fact, identical.”

New posters, in WUWT you usually have to correct your own maths mistakes. It is instead a ~33% chance that the trends are the same. Qualitatively, PF good still….

paul courtney
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 6, 2021 10:47 am

Mr. bob: You have to correct your own maths mistakes here? Meab and a half dozen others just corrected yours, before you finally owned up to your own goal. And when you make an own goal, the best thing for you to do is to deflect with some silly poke at people who are obviously better at maths than you, right?

Meab
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 6, 2021 8:49 am

Now you’re just lying. Your claim is OBVIOUSLY false, by inspection. Not even a possibility, not by any stretch.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Meab
April 6, 2021 9:26 am

“Your claim is OBVIOUSLY false, by inspection.”

You are “inspecting” the prejudgments burned on the inside of your eyelids. But you are in good company here…

UAH6 Temp Data.png
Last edited 4 days ago by bigoilbob
fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 7, 2021 12:30 am

Yep, all those NATURAL EL NINOS. that are the ONLY warming in the UAH data.

But that has turned around for a while.

Try not to look so DESPERATE !!

Doonman
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 10:20 am

Right, because all the data used to determine the 508 month trend is normally distributed. Trust bigoilbob on this one because he says so.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Doonman
April 5, 2021 10:38 am

Right, because all the data used to determine the 508 month trend is normally distributed. Trust bigoilbob on this one because he says so.”

No need to trust me. Generations of advancement in statistics, yup. Since the tendency of data evaluations is to naturally seek a normal distribution, per the Central Limit Theorem, the data is still evaluable.

Different instruments – no problem
Correlated error sources – they will not increase, and might decrease the standard error of the trend.

Temperature instrumentation and gathering techniques, and their sources of error, have been known for centuries. Not only that, but new knowledge has been shared around the world for nearly that long. That, and the centuries of accumulated knowledge of statistical analysis and spatial interpolation are brought to bear on global men temperature evaluations.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226558396_Calibration_and_Instrumental_Errors_in_Early_Measurements_of_Air_Temperature

The deniersphere has 2 levels of problem. The first is the denial of basic statistics. The second is explaining away to each other why superterrannea politely ignores their sporadic tries to get these denials past peer review. and then politely doesn’t cite the (very) few that make it after years of reviewer shopping.

Doonman
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 1:15 pm

Advancement in statistics = breaking the rules.

And when you get caught, make stuff up and call people names. Its such a great way to promote your argument.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 6:16 pm

bigoilbob posted: “Generations of advancement in statistics, yup. Since the tendency of data evaluations is to naturally seek a normal distribution, per the Central Limit Theorem, the data is still evaluable. (my bold emphasis on BS added).

Apparently he never heard, or perhaps never understood, the basic message of the phrase that was popularized in the US by Mark Twain: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

bigoilbob
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 5, 2021 6:28 pm

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I think we can all agree that, as a statistician, Mark Twain was a very good author and humorist.

https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/central-limit-theorem/#:~:text=The%20central%20limit%20theorem%20applies,because%20it%20has%20infinite%20variance.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 7:05 pm

The fundamental implication in the CLT is that probabilistic and statistical methods that work for normal distributions can be applicable to many problems involving other types of distributions.

This is NOT the case for UAH_TLT distributions as affected by El Niño and La Niña conditions.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 5, 2021 7:15 pm

“This is NOT the case for UAH_TLT distributions as affected by El Niño and La Niña conditions.”

AGAIN, the actual statistics say otherwise. There are enough of these cyclical events that the trend is statistically rock solid. Instead of butt yankin’, actually DO THE WORK, for once.

Bone throw. I’m not projecting anything from this sturdy trend. Just sayin’ that it’s there, like it or not. Please remember that it was the original poster who thought that his relatively instatisticate “pause” was mentionable. You might want to review Final Nail’s post about the distribution of trends around periods that long to gain some awareness.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 7, 2021 12:34 am

The actual DATA shows that there is….

NO WARMING APART FROM AT NATURAL EL NINO EVENTS

These are, of course, not caused by any sort of human interference

You KNOW you have zero evidence of any human causation in the highly beneficial warming since the LIA.

Just like you KNOW that you have zero evidence for any warming by atmospheric CO2

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 8, 2021 1:04 pm

“instatisticate ‘pause’ ” . . . WTF?

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 7, 2021 12:31 am

Again big oily slug

What do we DENY that you can provide solid scientific evidence for

Start with the basics..

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

TheFinalNail
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 5, 2021 11:15 am

According to this site the full UAH_TLT (v6) warming trend is +0.137 ±0.051 °C/decade (2σ). Since the uncertainty is smaller than the best estimate trend, the full warming in the UAH record can be said to be ‘statistically significant’.

http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

bigoilbob
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 5, 2021 11:29 am

I assumed that you rounded. Now, your expected value is exactly what I got, and I’m guessing that my 2 sigma value would agree with yours as well.

Thanks for the tool. This informative visual depiction has always been hard for me to replicate. Probably because I spend my days doing ****, unlike so many here…

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 7, 2021 12:35 am

Keep using those El Ninos.

You know they are the cause of the warming,

No human causation except in local urban areas.

But remember,

we are in La Nina territory now.

Try not to be too desperate. !

Last edited 3 days ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
April 7, 2021 12:24 am

And ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of any human causation.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 5, 2021 3:12 pm

The full UAH trend is indeed 1.4 K/century equivalent, as shown in last month’s posting. Of this, about 70% is anthropogenic (Wu et al. 2019, Scafetta 2021): i.e. about 1 K/century. Since the all-causes anthropogenic forcing over the 21st century is expected to be about 3.5 W/m^2, which is about the same as the doubled-CO2 forcing, we may expect in the region of 1 K ECS, and not the 3.7 K that is the current models’ midrange position.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 5, 2021 10:42 pm

In response to TheFinalNail, the previous Pause was not “relatively short”: it endured for 18 years 9 months. No one is saying that the Pauses indicate no global warming: but long Pauses, like long runs on a staircase, indicate a slow and gentle warming, not the fast and dangerous warming that the usual suspects profiteered by predicting.

Ron Long
April 5, 2021 2:56 am

Good report, but CAGW is not about numbers, it’s about feelings, like “I would feel better if you gave me your money”.

Reply to  Ron Long
April 5, 2021 7:50 am

It is more than feelings…a lot more…it’s part of a cause…the Left Cause which has been steadily marching Left for over a century at least…never satisfied…always wants more and more…further and further to the Left until one day….over the Left Wing Cliff….into Oblivion…..and taking everyone with them if possible….underestimate them at your peril.

Last edited 5 days ago by Anti-griff
Steve Case
April 5, 2021 2:56 am

 “… the possibility of another la Niña at the end of this year. The likelihood of El Niño conditions is thought to be remote for now.

If the climate models were any good, they would be able to predict an El Niño or La Niña within a year’s time. But they can’t and we are supposed to believe the models are good for many decades into the future.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 5, 2021 3:28 am

The loudly announced outstandig new climate model of the PIK with leading scientist Schellnhuber in the frontline predicted in 2019 a coming strong El Niño.(80% prob.)
Very early warning signal for El Niño in 2020 with a 4 in 5 likelihood

We see the result 😀
More to say ? 😀

Last edited 5 days ago by Krishna Gans
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 5, 2021 3:34 am

Complexity-based approach for El Niño magnitude forecasting before the spring predictability barrier
If that paper is based on the model cited above, than it’s for the trash 😀

Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 5, 2021 3:41 am

Edit-time over 🙁 PS

Respective press release concerning the model forecast:

The model used allows the prediction that with a probability of 80 percent El Niño will occur again next year, write the researchers led by Josef Ludescher of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Researchers from Justus Liebig University Giessen (JLU) and Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan (Israel) are also involved in the project.

The forecast is based on an algorithm that analyzes air temperatures in the Pacific region. This makes it possible to make a prediction much earlier, the scientists say. Already the last two El Niño events could be predicted correctly with a longer lead time. The commonly used forecast models do not yet see any signs of El Niño. The conventional methods are not capable of a reliable El Niño forecast that is valid more than six months in advance, the researchers said. The new method, on the other hand, could roughly double the previous warning time.

The founding director of PIK, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who is involved in the study, explains about the method: “This clever combination of measured values and mathematics gives us unique insights – and we make these available to the people concerned.” Schellnhuber points out that even the new method does not, of course, offer 100 percent certainty: “The probability of ‘El Niño’ coming in 2020 is about 80 percent. But that’s pretty significant.”

Last edited 5 days ago by Krishna Gans
Abolition Man
April 5, 2021 3:27 am

Thank you for the news, Lord Monckton!
I have been reading more about the current CO2 drought we have been suffering through here on Earth, and thought it high time that alarmists start admitting their core beliefs for all to hear! To that end I thought I’d compose a wee mantra for the true believers to chant for encouragement and fraternity together!
”I am pollution! From dangerous pollution I am sprung and all Life around me is pollution and dangerous as well! Let no one deny the source of all Life; for without the evil pollution, no life is possible! Yea, I am pollution, and demand to be treated as such by all right thinkers!”

Steve Case
April 5, 2021 3:50 am

“The HadCRUT4 data show no warming in the 6 years 9 months May 2014 to January 2021:”

And NASA’s Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) shows no warming in the 5 years 8 months June 2015 to February 2021. (Expect Skeptical Science to dust off their Escalator)

Besides that, NASA made 468 changes to the LOTI data January to February 2021. Over all, that’s 54,366 changes since 2003.

It will be a week or two until LOTI for March 2021 is out.

Bruce Cobb
April 5, 2021 4:18 am

Shhhhhh! Don’t wake the Baby Pause!

observa
April 5, 2021 4:44 am

They’ll just bleat it’s due to Covid so more grants needed to incorporate it into the models to cool the past some more. Doomster 101.

April 5, 2021 5:18 am

Bless the Lord. There is also some unexpected extra ice!
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/04/05/unexpected-ice/

Bellman
April 5, 2021 5:19 am

The pause in perspective.

20210405wuwt3.png
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 5:54 am

How was this graph caused by carbon dioxide?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 5, 2021 7:30 am

Carlo, Monte,

Please enlighten us: where, in the article above or in graph posted by Bellman at 5:19 am, was there a claim that the temperature anomaly trends were associated with atmospheric CO2 concentration changes?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 5, 2021 7:59 am

He doesn’t. The point I was trying to make is that the real purpose of all these scatter plots of temperature versus time that are pointed to by the CAGW crowd is to infer or imply that CO2 is the cause; this of course goes back to Mickey Mann and the 1998 stick chart.

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 5, 2021 12:17 pm

That wasn’t the point of my graph. The point is to put the “pause” into context. I feel it’s disingenuous to talk about it in a way that suggest warming has stopped, and ignore the fact that the pause is warmer than the trend before the pause.

Not that I’m saying that CO2 isn’t the cause, but for this argument it doesn’t matter what caused the warming, it’s just misleading to suggest it has stopped.

Doonman
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 1:22 pm

Its also misleading to not graph the entire holocene interglacial, but that doesn’t seem to bother you at all.

Bellman
Reply to  Doonman
April 5, 2021 1:42 pm

Difficult to do with UAH data.

Last edited 5 days ago by Bellman
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 3:17 pm

Bellman’s paymasters cannot be happy with his performance here. In this series we have posted full data series not only for UAH but for other, longer datasets as well.

The truth is that the increasing frequency of longish pauses suggests powerfully that the rate of global warming is nothing like as great as Bellman’s paymasters would like us to believe, particularly since only 70% of that warming, according to Wu et al. 2019, or Scafetta 2021, is anthropogenic.

At present warming seems to be driven not so much by CO2, which appears to contribute a weak background signal, as by PDO and ENSO and AMO.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 5, 2021 5:19 pm

One day you must tell me who my paymasters are. Obviously it cannot be a secret if you know and if I’m being paid by them I have a right to know as well.

Yes you have occasionally shown longer graphs, and I applaud you for going that far. But I don’t think you’ve done what my graph did, and show just where the pause is on the longer graphs.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Doonman
April 6, 2021 9:32 pm

Yes, if one is going to complain about cherry picking data points, then they should use all available data, and not restrict it to modern times.

Lrp
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 2:33 pm

You are confusing terms; the pause is a break in the warming trend concocted by the alarmist industry, and it disconnects CO2 level from the observed temperatures.

Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 3:03 pm

It’s also misleading to graph a single trend line for the preceeding period when a simple “eyeballing:” clearly show a series of step changes.

Bellman
Reply to  StuM
April 5, 2021 4:39 pm

If you prefer here’s Monckton’s other pause. Note, there’s now a few months overlap between the end of the old pause and the start of the new.

It’s precisely because it lead’s to “step changes” i.e. discontinuities, that I find his derived pauses, so unconvincing. Either the world is spontaneously warming a year or so before a big El Niño and then stays at that warmer temperature for years, before warming instantaneously warming again, or we are seeing a smooth continuous (not necessarily linear) warming trend punctuated with occasional short term spikes.

The later seems more physically plausible to me.

20210504wuwt3.png
Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 10:36 pm

As David Wojick points out below, the most obvious explanation for temperature changes is the el Nino and la Nina cycles. When strong el Ninos predominate, temperature rises. When strong la Ninas predominate, temperature falls. And those are natural cycles, partly caused by solar activity and partly caused by subsea volcanism in the highly-active tropical eastern Pacific.

The signal from CO2 is weak, which is why – as the long pauses indicate – the overall rising trend is so very much less than that which was originally predicted.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 6, 2021 7:45 am

ENSO cycles explain a lot of the short term changes, but it’s difficult to see how they can explain longer term trends, let alone the discontinuities in the above graph.

What evidence is there that strong El Niños are predominating? Depending on what index you use ENSO is either flat of decreasing over the UAH period.

comment image

You could certainly argue that your pauses are the results of random variation in ENSO, e.g. your fist pause starts with a very large El Niño, there are generally positive ENSO conditions for the first few years of the 21st century, and then very very strong La Niña towards the end. The same on a shorter scae with the current one, starting on a strong El Niño, ending on a moderate La Niña.

If you look for “pauses” you can always find them in this manor, but the clue that they are statistical artifacts is the way each one is warmer than the last. .

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
April 7, 2021 9:46 am

Poor Bellman becomes more and more desperate as the New Pause lengthens. In this column we do not make predictions, we merely report the fact that there has been no trend in global warming for close to six years – the period that Bellman had himself said would indicate some statistical significance.

The previous Pause, which lasted nearly 19 years, exceeded by a comfortable margin the 15-year stasis which, according to NOAA in its State of the Climate Report for 2008, would indicate a significant discrepancy between the models’ predictions and observed reality.

However much Bellman may blub, the ineluctable fact remains: the world is warming at a rate far, far slower than the models predicted. That raises the not uninteresting question what the models are getting wrong.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 7, 2021 2:57 pm

…no trend in global warming for close to six years – the period that Bellman had himself said would indicate some statistical significance.

If I ever said that, then I was an idiot, or being sarcastic.

  1. The length of a trend does not necessarily indicate the significance.
  2. It’s very unusual that many 6 year periods will show a significant trend.
  3. Any that do are likely to not be useful indicators of anything, especially if they have been selected specifically because they show a significant trend.
  4. Talking about the significance of a zero trend is meaningless unless you specify what the null-hypothesis is.
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
April 7, 2021 3:32 pm

To illustrate point 3 above, I find that between January 2012 and December 2017 the trend was 8.47°C / century, and this trend is statistically significant, but what lessons could you possibly draw from it?

Last edited 2 days ago by Bellman
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
April 8, 2021 5:10 am

For reference here’s every 6 year trend in the UAH data set.

20210408wuwt.png
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 8:37 am

The point is that it is growing. How long it will get is anyone’s guess, but it wouldn’t take that much for it to link up with the original 18+ year Pause, creating a Megapause.

SAMURAI
Reply to  Bellman
April 5, 2021 9:57 am

Bellman-san:

The 2015/16 Super El Niño event caused a short-term spike in global temps and the current moderate La Niña cycle has mostly negated it.

when the PDO and AMO reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles in about 3~5 years, we’ll have 30+ years of global cooling, which will end this absurd CAGW hoax.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bellman
April 6, 2021 10:55 am

Now separate the trend lines at 1997.

David Wojick
April 5, 2021 5:56 am

The entire UAH record consists of three pauses. Each is a bit warmer than its predecessor and warming steps up are coincident with super El Ninos. Here is Joe Bastardi’s recent graph of this pattern:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/15/the-new-pause/

Thus there appears to be no CO2 warming. I pointed this out several years ago:
https://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/

The AGW hypothesis is falsified by observation, which is how science works.

Doonman
Reply to  David Wojick
April 5, 2021 1:25 pm

Of course it is, unless you think CO2 radiative properties go on vacation regularly.

Gordon A. Dressler
April 5, 2021 7:06 am

I’m betting than none of the 30 or so “best,” massive, supercomputer-enabled, climate models used by the IPCC to predict global warming saw this coming.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

ren
April 5, 2021 7:10 am

Arctic air is beginning to flow in a wide stream to Western Europe. In Iceland, the temperature is now lower than in winter.comment image

ren
April 5, 2021 7:26 am

Galactic radiation increased, as during the cycle minimum.comment image

April 5, 2021 9:00 am

Termination of Solar Cycles and Correlated Tropospheric Variability

The Sun provides the energy required to sustain life on Earth and drive our planet’s atmospheric circulation. However, establishing a solid physical connection between solar and tropospheric variability has posed a considerable challenge. The canon of solar variability is derived from the 400 years of observations that demonstrates the waxing and waning number of sunspots over an 11(‐ish) year period. Recent research has demonstrated the significance of the underlying 22 years magnetic polarity cycle in establishing the shorter sunspot cycle. Integral to the manifestation of the latter is the spatiotemporal overlapping and migration of oppositely polarized magnetic bands.
We demonstrate the impact of “terminators”—the end of Hale magnetic cycles—on the Sun’s radiative output and particulate shielding of our atmosphere through the rapid global reconfiguration of solar magnetism. Using direct observation and proxies of solar activity going back some six decades we can, with high statistical significance, demonstrate a correlation between the occurrence of terminators and the largest swings of Earth’s oceanic indices: the transition from El Niño to La Niña states of the central Pacific. This empirical relationship is a potential source of increased predictive skill for the understanding of El Niño climate variations, a high‐stakes societal imperative given that El Niño impacts lives, property, and economic activity around the globe. A forecast of the Sun’s global behavior places the next solar cycle termination in mid‐2020; should a major oceanic swing follow, then the challenge becomes: when does correlation become causation and how does the process work?

Last edited 5 days ago by Krishna Gans
ren
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 5, 2021 3:19 pm

You can see El Niño at the end of the solar cycle and La Niña at the beginning. comment image

ResourceGuy
April 5, 2021 9:23 am

This is as far as you can go in research with solar and ocean temps, without endangering your career. They dare not discuss the climate implications of multicycle low output.

New study ties solar variability to the onset of decadal La Nina events | EurekAlert! Science News

Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 5, 2021 9:29 am

A press release of the study mentioned just one comment above yours
Amazing 😀 😀
Comments may be written here to be read 😀 😀

Last edited 5 days ago by Krishna Gans
Bruce Cobb
April 5, 2021 9:26 am

It’s still early yet, but the Pause Deniers might want to dust off all their dog-ate-my-homework excuses for it. I’m not sure if they reached 100, but I think they came close. Who knows, maybe they’ll think of some new ones this time. Aliens?

Weekly_rise
April 5, 2021 9:31 am

Nick Stokes has shown this more compellingly elsewhere in the thread, but to reiterate the same comment I make every time Mr. Monckton makes one of his new “pause” updates, the trend for the past 70 months is not statistically significant:

comment image

Temperature data are very noisy, and over short timescales that noise can swamp the long term trend underlying it. The longer the time span you look at, the more confidence you can place in the observed trend. When you look at the longer term trend in the UAH data, it is undeniably warming.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 5, 2021 11:07 am

Strawman much? No one claims it is statistically significant, nor is any claim made that it affects the long-term trend, that we have warmed a bit since the LIA (big deal). Pauses, especially the longer they get are of interest because they add a further layer of doubt onto the CAGW ideology, and the longer they get, the more frantic the Alarmists get, and the more wild their “excuses” get, which is a great amusement for Skeptics/Climate Realists.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 5, 2021 11:55 am

You can achieve a flat trend both in data that have no trend (are composed of pure random noise) or data that do have a trend but have a low signal/noise ratio over the time period considered. Here I made a series with a 1:1 trend + some random noise. Over 100 “years” there is a clear and significant trend:

comment image

But if I pull out the first ten “years” there is an apparent flat trend that is not statistically significant:

comment image

If you were to bet that that 10 year “pause” was going to continue, or that it signaled a slowdown or end to the “warming,” you’d be out money.

There is no “layer of doubt” added by “pauses” like this one, since in any data that are comprised of signal+noise you can find any trend you want if you pick the right time interval. You can’t necessarily find a trend that provides any useful information about the behavior of the series by doing this, however.

Last edited 5 days ago by Weekly_rise
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 5, 2021 12:48 pm

You just don’t get it, I guess.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 5, 2021 1:59 pm

I certainly don’t get why Mr. Monckton is making claims that the data don’t support, no.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 5, 2021 3:22 pm

Weekly_rise should ask his paymasters for a payrise. I have not made any “claims that the data don’t support”: I have stated that the least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH data shows no trend in the past 5 years 10 months. Of course, calculating least-square trends is beyond Weekly_Rise’s competence, or he would not have suggested I was making unsupported claims.

I suspect that the paid trolls here are whingeing even more than usual because they know how very powerful the last Pause proved to be as a way of shutting down climate fanaticism, and they are terrified that the same may happen again as the present Pause lengthens.

However, in this series I make no predictions: I merely report the fact – and it is a fact, however uncongenial that fact may be to Weekly_rise’s paymasters – that there is a Pause.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 6, 2021 5:14 am

The claim you’ve made that is unsupported by the data is the claim of a pause. You simply cannot establish that based on the data you’ve shown. You need to calculate the uncertainty interval of the calculated trend for the data and determine whether a trend >0 falls inside of it (and I’ll give everyone in the thread a little spoiler: it is going to).

As I showed, you can find 10 year + “pauses” in artificial data with a baked-in trend.

Last edited 4 days ago by Weekly_rise
paul courtney
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 6, 2021 11:34 am

MR. rise: You say the claim is “unsupported” by data; but you also say the problem is short time scales. In other words, the data DO support his claim, but you say the time scales are too short. Try to be precise: Do the data support it but you disagree with his method? Because you have shown it is supported by data.
You (and Bellman and Stokes) are simply being obtuse, using statistical sleight of hand (we know you can shift dates to show trend lines, but you can’t shift “today”) to obscure the all-too-obvious point: If CO2 goes up and the temp does not, then AGW is falsified.
Won’t disagree with your last sentence, I’m guessing you can even find a 10 year pause in Gavin Schmidt’s artificial data with a baked-in warming trend.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  paul courtney
April 6, 2021 2:28 pm

The data do not support the claim Mr. Monckton is making. The margin of error in the trend for the past 6 years is too large to claim that there is a pause in the warming trend. Is this clearer for you?

CO2 goes up and the temp does not, then AGW is falsified.

This is untrue, since CO2 is not the only thing influencing weather or climate. We expect a long term increase of the surface temperature in response to rising CO2 concentration, we do not expect there to be no year over year or month over month variability.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 6, 2021 9:40 pm

Your own work shows that there is no statistical support for the hypothesis that there is a trend. That is, the null hypothesis is to be accepted, which is that there is no relationship between the independent variable (time) and the dependent variable (temp). That is, the slope is zero!

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 7, 2021 8:35 am

Failing to reject the null hypothesis does not mean that you have proven it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 7, 2021 1:12 pm

Let’s consider the semantics. If I give you a gift, and you don’t reject it, can’t I assume that you have accepted it, even if you hate it?

The alternate hypothesis is that there is a trend. That is, the absolute value of the slope is greater than zero. If the null hypothesis is rejected, then one generally accepts the alternate hypothesis. What are the choices? That there is either a trend or their isn’t! If the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, then one should accept it as being the best explanation, particularly when the graph shows it is approximately zero, and it cannot be rejected statistically.

Your position is basically rejecting the idea that anything can be proven with statistics. As you would have it, 1) rejecting a null hypothesis doesn’t prove the alternate hypothesis, one only assumes that it is the best of two competing hypotheses; 2) not rejecting the null hypothesis leaves one with two competing hypotheses with no way to prove either one. Why would you or anyone use statistics to try to prove something?

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 7, 2021 5:48 pm

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” I’ve already showed you that it’s easy to find periods with no trend in a series made up of random noise plus a baked in trend (I.e. we know the trend is there, because we put it there, we just can’t see it for the noise).

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 7, 2021 1:41 am

Weekly-rise has just demonstrated that Pat Frank is right: propagation of error in models’ outputs means that all of their predictions of warming fall within the statistical uncertainty envelope and are, therefore, meaningless.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 5, 2021 4:51 pm

You’ve missed the point again: why are these temperatures not rising for the past 5 years as atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing the entire time.

And more than ironically, what your statistics are saying is that there is no correlation of temperature versus time, which is exactly the point CMoB is making.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 6, 2021 5:06 am

CO2 is not the only factor influencing global temperature, especially on short timescales. There are other influences like internal variability, and natural and anthropogenic forcing that have an impact as well. This is my point, which you’ve missed. Climate data are noisy, and it is hard to make confident predictions about long term trends over very short timescales.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 6, 2021 9:24 am

So on the basis of all this noise and uncertainty, we have to spend tens of trillions of dollars to stop using fossil fuel energy?

Be real…

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 6, 2021 11:25 am

The longer the period of observation, the lower the uncertainty in the trend. No one has suggested making policy decisions based on 6 years of data.

paul courtney
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 6, 2021 11:40 am

Mr. Carlo: I asked him to be precise, you asked him to be real. Maybe we are asking too much? ‘Cause I don’t think he will be either one.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  paul courtney
April 6, 2021 12:59 pm

I think you are correct here.

paul courtney
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 6, 2021 11:38 am

Mr. rise: Please do tell what “anthropogenic forcing” impact has been observed that “influences global temperature”? Remember my prior admonition- be precise.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
April 6, 2021 5:06 pm

I believe it is you who are missing my point: we don’t know if the temperatures aren’t rising because global warming has stopped or because the data are just too noisy to tell. The uncertainty in the trend over this small time period is too great.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 7, 2021 1:38 am

Elementary considerations would lead us to conclude that global warming has not stopped. However, repeated long periods without warming are one way of pointing towards the underlying truth that the entire period of record since December 1978 shows global warming at a rate equivalent to less than 1.4 K/century, of which only 70%, or about 1 K/century equivalent (Wu et al. 2019, Scafetta 2021), was anthropogenic, and not the 3.4 K/century equivalent that IPCC (1990) had confidently predicted.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 7, 2021 6:33 am

Nick Stokes has already shown us earlier that the long term trend shown in the UAH V6 data is about 1.4 deg C/Century, so there is no need to point toward this truth:

comment image

I am unsure why you’re suggesting that the IPCC “predicted” historic trends.

Also interesting to note, from the above graph, that the UAH series is, with the update of HadCRUT to V5 (the graph shows V4), quite an outlier.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 7, 2021 9:40 am

Nick Stokes had no need to point out that the long-run trend on the UAH monthly data is close to 1.4 K/century equivalent: that fact had been made quite plain in last month’s column.

And it seems that the increasingly desperate “weekly-rise” has some difficulty with understanding the elementary physical concept of the arrow of time.

IPCC made its first medium-term prediction of anthropogenic global warming in 1990. That prediction was to the effect that in the following decades there would be anthropogenic warming equivalent to 0.34 K/decade, or 3.4 K/century. That turns out to have been an egregious overstatement compared with observed reality.

One understands that the continuing slow rate of warming, so very far short of the scandalously overblown predictions on the basis of which the climate fanatics got the current scare going, is vexing to them. But there it is: observation trumps prediction, so weekly-rise is just going to have to get used to it.

For the predictions were based on the false assumption that about 8 K global warming caused by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases drove 24 K feedback response. The obvious error in that calculation is that it ignores the sunshine. Emission temperature drove nearly all of the 24 K preindustrial feedback response. Without much error, one can ignore feedback response in deriving equilibrium sensitivities today, so that there will be around 1.1 K equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 concentration – and that is hardly a problem, now, is it?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
April 8, 2021 3:27 pm

You are conflating two different questions: 1) Is there statistical evidence for an increase in the trend over the last 6 years; 2) If not, why not?

Question 1 stands on its own, without a need for an answer to question 2.

Because question 1 null hypothesis cannot be rejected based on statistical probability, the conclusion is that there is no evidence supporting a trend for what appears visually to be trendless.

Yes, noisy data might be responsible for this situation, as for any similar situation. However, one is left with the possibility that there actually is not even an embedded trend, and the speculated noise hiding the data is not valid. How does one prove which of the two hypotheses apply to question 2?

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2021 7:57 am

Here’s a different view of the same concept I’m trying to relate. Similar to Nick Stokes’ graphic above, I’ve calculated the trend starting in each year through 2020. I’ve also plotted the 95% uncertainty interval for the trend in each starting year:

comment image

As you can see, when we get to very short intervals, the uncertainty in the calculated trend skyrockets. But note that the uncertainty in the trend doesn’t include 0 (grey line) until 2010, and at no point does the uncertainty in the trend exclude the trend since 1979 (red dashed line).

Mr. Monckton can keep updating his “pause” as long as he likes, that “pause” won’t be meaningful until he can show that the uncertainty in the trend excludes a positive rate of warming.This is why we can’t say that no evidence of a trend is equivalent of the presence of evidence for a non-trend over this period.

Last edited 1 day ago by Weekly_rise
Dave
April 5, 2021 9:47 am

The satellite record was negative (-0.01 C) for March.

Antero Ollila
April 5, 2021 11:51 am

I am pretty concerned that those professionals, who should follow the global temperature trends and the reasons behind the changes, are not on the map at all. La Nina is too weak to cause temperature drops started last December. The reason is the weakening of shortwave tradition anomaly. This anomaly caused 50 % of the user El Nino 2015-16 and has been at the level of 1,7 W/m2 till 2019. It is the magnitude as CO2 forcing from 1750 to 2011 according to IPCC:

Here are the simple facts based on the CERES observations. The pause of the 2000s is back! The temperature of March is exactly the same as the average temperature of 2002-2014..

https://www.climatexam.com/blog

RoHa
April 5, 2021 11:18 pm

Hold on. I thought the old pause started in 1997 and lasted till 2017. But the new pause started in 2014?

I’m confused.

Antero Ollila
Reply to  RoHa
April 6, 2021 3:09 am

There is no exact rule. You get the same result if you start from 1997 or 2002.

Hubert
April 6, 2021 4:27 am

the concept of pause is not realistic : nature doesn’t know it, it’s changing all the time depending on many different cycles from a few years to millions ! But during human life time, one could consider to live in a stable climate , which is NEVER the case !

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Hubert
April 7, 2021 1:33 am

To those unfamiliar with elementary statistics, the derivation of a trend on a data series must seem meaningless. However, the trend is correctly calculated. The climate is indeed inherently thermostatic, which is why there has been little more than 3 degrees’ variance either side of the 800,000-year mean (Jouzel et al. 2007). Over the past six or seven years, there has been a zero trend in global warming. So short a trendless period is not in itself statistically significant. However, if there is no la Nina for two or three years the present pause could become significant, which is why we track it here.