The New Pause lengthens by two months to 6 years

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The miniature La Niña that has recently ended is now working its magic on lower-troposphere temperatures. The UAH monthly global mean lower-troposphere anomalies for April 2021 show a further drop, lengthening the New Pause by two months, from 5 years 10 months last month to 6 years this month.

The HadCRUT4 data show no warming in the 6 years 9 months May 2014 to January 2021, and there has been no update since January. Though HadCRUT is usually tardy, it is not usually this late. However, it does provide error-bars, which are shown here:

It is likely that the temperature anomalies will remain below the trend-line for another month or two, lengthening the New Pause still further. It will be interesting to see how long the Pause becomes by the time of the Glasgow climate gabfest in the autumn.

4.5 42 votes
Article Rating
292 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tillman
May 3, 2021 10:07 pm

With La Nada or renewed La Nina during the rest of this year, soon the new “pause” and old “pause” will be unified into a the 21st century pause.

Children born in 1997 will then never have known global warming.

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  John Tillman
May 3, 2021 10:33 pm

It’ll take 1-2 years of consistent negative ‘anomalies’ to start thinking about linking up with the old pause. Long way to go, but it’s a good start and the SST haven’t turned positive yet, so we have another 4-6 months of pause-lengthening (usually 2 months per month) baked in right now.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom in Toronto
Bellman
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
May 4, 2021 4:37 am

Anomalies will need to be below -0.4 for 2 years for this joining up of pauses.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 7:37 am

That’s odd, my spreadsheet says -0.325 until December 2023 (starting in May 2021) does the trick, with a trend of -0.01°C/century from 11/1997 to 12/2023 …

“There is a computer disease that anybody who works with computers knows about. It’s a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is that you ‘play’ with them.” — Richard P. Feynman.

Bellman
Reply to  Mark BLR
May 4, 2021 8:02 am

Yes, that would do it, though the start point is evenly poised. But December 2023 is more than two years away.

Also, there have only been 6 months this century below -.325, so I a run of 32 consecutive months that cold will be a very unusual event, and frankly I can’t see anyone worrying about when the pause officially started – it would be self evident that something needed investigating.

Richard M
Reply to  John Tillman
May 4, 2021 6:46 am

On a shorter term basis it is likely the UAH anomaly will remain negative for at least the next two months. UAH mirrors the HadSST3 anomaly with about a 5-6 month lag.

After that I would expect an increase into low positive values but still well below the recent 2014-2020 average. This could extend the pause to nearly 8 years by the end of 2021.

If we do see another La Nina this fall then by the end of 2022 we could see a 10 year pause. While not quite linking up to the original pause the step up would look pretty minimal.

chris
Reply to  John Tillman
May 4, 2021 12:03 pm

This attempt to cherry pick fails.

Adults (24 years old is adult in my book) born in 1997 have seen global land + sea temps increase by 0.54C. Its 0.96C for land-only (where I live-on the land). Those are pretty dramatic increases, albeit, over a short period.

Go back to, say, 1980, about when Millennials – the largest age cohort alive today – were born and its even more dramatic, increasing at 0.3C per decade.

Considering that none of the causes of climate change are decreasing, I don’t see how one could agree with your derisive dismissal of the fact.

see: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series
for more fun with numbers.

cheers

B Clarke
Reply to  chris
May 4, 2021 1:02 pm

But they are changing its getting colder and co2 is rising ,weres the linear rise in temperature? If co2 is such a potent atmosheric gas why is it not stopping cooling ?

Cheers .

David Chorley
Reply to  B Clarke
May 5, 2021 11:28 am

because it changed from 0.038% to 0.042%. do that to your bank balance and see what happens

B Clarke
Reply to  David Chorley
May 5, 2021 11:37 am

I don’t see any rise as you insinuate perhaps your reading the wrong graph ,

Incidentally if my bank balance in creased by that amount I’d be buying a new diesel car.

Doonman
Reply to  chris
May 4, 2021 1:09 pm

Then again, the increase in temperature trend was just as dramatic between 1900 and 1940. The only difference is that it could not be blamed on human CO2 emissions, so it is ignored by those who wish to place blame now. But I’m sure that dramatic increase in global temperature trend alarmed all young adults at that time too, aren’t you?

Reply to  chris
May 4, 2021 5:29 pm

half a degree is dramatic? You can’t even notice half a degree. It is completely irrelevent.

Ken
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
May 4, 2021 6:44 pm

It does matter in terms of growing season for some parts of the country.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Ken
May 5, 2021 5:37 pm

Max temps going up won’t change growing seasons very much. It is nighttime minimum temps that determine growing seasons. You can’t grow most crops till freezing is over. There are some, hard red winter wheat, cauliflower, and broccoli but I don’t know of very many others. Most of the alarmism is about the Earth turning into a cinder from higher maximum temps.

Izaak Walton
May 3, 2021 10:20 pm

This really is just cherry picking with a vengeance. Any sensible definition of a “pause” in global warming would mean that after one month the maximum length of time the pause could increase would be one month. The fact that Mr. Monckton is claiming that the pause has increased by two months since last month should be a strong sign that this is not a meaningful definition.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 3, 2021 10:22 pm

Well, no. If the temperature goes down to the same as the month before the start of the previous pause, the new pause is two months longer. Try thinking instead of knee-jerking denial.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 3, 2021 11:01 pm

That is cherry picking since you get to choose both the start point and the end point
in order to get the value you want. Compare that to Dr. Spencer’s approach where every month he calculates the temperature change starting the start of satellite measurements. He stated here just yesterday that:
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade “

Which is a non-cherry picked example of data analysis. Now within that 50 year data set you can find arbitrary start and end dates to give you a whole range of temperature trends but almost none of them are valid.

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 3, 2021 11:28 pm

“you get to choose both the start point and the end point in order to get the value you want.”

STILL the total lack of comprehension.

HILARIOUS ! Please stop making a total fool of yourself.

The end point is NOW….. the start point is determined purely by mathematics

No cherry-picking whatsoever.

Sorry you remain CLUELESS. !!

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 7:54 am

The end point is NOW….. the start point is determined purely by mathematics

If the end point has to be now, then how is it possible to talk about the old pause?

The fact that the start point is determined purely by mathematics is the the problem. You are mathematically determining when the best point to start the trend is to reach a predetermined conclusion – i.e. there has been no warming. If I wanted to show a long period of warming, would it be better if I started at an arbitrary point, or used mathematics to determine the best start month to make my point, either the month that would give me the fastest rate of warming or the longest period of warming?

By all means use statistics to determine a change point, but this won’t be a specific month, and any change will have to be statistically significant.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 8:40 am

When you are determining a PAUSE then you have to determine the START of the pause.

How do you determine the START of a PAUSE by using an arbitrary point?

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 8:44 am

The old pause exists, why shouldn’t we talk about it?
The old pause has nothing to do with the new pause, up until the time when the two connect.

JamesD
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 9:13 am

Last month the pause was 5 years and 10 months. This month the pause is 6 years. That is a straight up calculation.

And no one is deny that that Earth is gently warming at 1.4C per century while benefiting from an increase in plant food, though many expect even the gentle temp increase to lesson after the sun is quite for a decade or two.

Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 10:51 am

Bellman

The start point is Now! There is nothing arbitrary about that and the fact that you bring it up over and over again just shows how arbitrary you are so at least you are right about something being arbitrary

paul courtney
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 12:03 pm

Mr. Bellman: What is predetermined? We are told that we have a long-term warming trend. Monckton wanted to know if it was as relentless as increasing CO2, so he starts in the current month and looks back. How has he “predetermined” that there was no warming? When the “old” pause ended, did he try to change the dates, or did he acknowledge that the “pause” that showed up IN THE DATA (yeah, shouting now) had ended? If it’s the latter, then you need to check your biases.

ATheoK
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 6:50 pm

STILL the total lack of comprehension.”

Agreed!

It is useful to remember that alarmists used the exact same claim during the earlier pause.

That it was cherry picking…

Desperation drives the alarmists as their CO₂ caused warming is disproven by temperatures refusal to comply with alarmist CO₂ forcing temperatures higher.

Redge
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 3, 2021 11:46 pm

So you’re saying it’s ok for Scientologists to cherry-pick their start date to “prove” we’re all gonna die in Thermageddon instead of taking a holistic look at temperatures over the last 10,000, 100,000, 1.000.000 years?

figure-36.png
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Redge
May 4, 2021 3:47 am

I love this website for comments like this one! 🙂

M.W.Plia
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2021 10:46 am

Me too!

Nature/wisdom dominates. I submit a brief summary….

Once every 100,000 yrs. the precession cycle has summer solstice of the northern hemisphere (NH) at “perihelion” (the planet’s closest approach to the sun) when the orbit is at maximum eccentricity and the planet’s axial tilt maxed out at 24.5˚ in relation to the orbital plane.

At some point close to or at this maximum, exposure to the sun’s rays (insolation) at 65N increases causing the great northern ice sheets to melt away putting the Earth into an interglacial warm period. The 3,500 year “Holocene Climatic Optimum”, the peak temperature response of the orbital/axial maximum ended 4,500 years ago, the “cryosphere” (Earth’s ice) was less then than now; there is paleo shoreline evidence of Arctic ice free summers with sea levels higher by as much as 7ft.  

In Ontario, Carolinian forest remnants from the Holocene’s optimum place the forest’s tree line 200km north of its now northernmost border.  

In about 35,000 years from now, when the NH winter solstice is at “aphelion” (the planet’s furthest approach to the Sun) with the orbit in minimum eccentricity and the axis at its minimum tilt of 22.1˚, the insolation at 65N will be at its weakest, the ice sheets will be well past their start and approaching their first maximum.

Other than an indication of temperatures CO2 levels So what?

M.W.Plia
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2021 10:50 am

Oops, hit the wrong button.
CO2 levels are more an indication of temperature
as opposed to a cause.

So what?

See - Owe to Rich
Reply to  M.W.Plia
May 6, 2021 3:39 am

MWP (!), surely if your geometry is correct and in 35,000 years time the NH winter solstice is at aphelion, then the NH summer solstice will be at perihelion, which will more than offset the poor tilt of 22.1 degrees, so insolation at 65N will not be minimized?

I’m happy to be corrected by detailed mathematics though…

Rich.

M.W.Plia
Reply to  See - Owe to Rich
May 8, 2021 12:52 pm

OtR! you are correct, my mistake. Summer, not winter.

In the paragraph at the end I meant to say: In about 35,000 years from now, when the NH summer solstice is at “aphelion” (the planet’s furthest approach to the Sun) 

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 12:00 am

“Now within that 42 year data set you can find…

……. LONG periods between the El Nino events, where there is basically NO WARMING.

UAH shows absolutely zero evidence of any human caused warming..

Nearly all the warming in other “once-were-data” sets is from urban warming smeared over large rural areas, and manic “adjustments” by AGW agenda driven scammers.

Editor
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 1:09 am

Roy Spencer’s approach is correct for what he does, but in this case something different is being done and it needs a different method. The aim is to find the longest period ending today for which there has been no warming. So the end date of the period being calculated is defined as being today. The start date is calculated as the earliest date for which the linear temperature trend to the end date is less than or equal to zero.

Using different temperature series could give different results. The notion of the length of the “pause” came from a statement from I think UEA (University of East Anglia in the UK) that it would take a ten-year period of no warming to disprove the models.

The calculation uses the same sort of process that you would use to find out, for example, how many consecutive days of rain there have been (starting today, work back until you find a day with no rain).

Loydo
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 4, 2021 1:49 am

 “The aim is to find the longest period ending today for which there has been no warming.”

By watching a flea on the dog’s wagging tail? The noisiest 5%?

comment image

What a load Bunckton.

B Clarke
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 2:20 am

Don’t be ridiculous loydo, if we take eg a 50 year temp graph we can see if there has been a 20 year cooling or warming period it may or may not effect the overall trend. The devil is in the detail ,just because you don’t like the 6 year cooling trend does not mean its not happening, if the boot was on the other foot you’d be the first to say “I told you so” we also have the mechanisms of why its cooled thats most important for the study of earths temperatures. The one thing for sure is while co2 continues to rise the earths temps have dropped, with one year of severely reduced human co2 imissions its clear co2 is playing no part in warming the planet. You have been told this for years on this site. Wakey Wakey loydo.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 2:46 am

ROFLMAO

Loopy-loy-dodo.. comes in showing a warming equivalent toi a FRACTION of a degree.

Displaying its absolute IGNORANCE for all to see.

Loopy-loy-dodo…… that TINY amount of OHC you show is the little red squiggle on this chart…

comment image

And of course.,. its all TOTALLY NATURAL, with no human causation.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 3:09 am

I’m genuinely fascinated to know how we can calculate the total heat content of the World’s oceans without measuring the temperature of every cubic meter at all depths, over the entire surface.

fred250
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 4, 2021 3:17 am

Especially back in 1950, when they had basically zero measurements for most of the southern oceans ! 🙂

Richard Burkel
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 4, 2021 8:27 am

And, as usual, no mention of error bounds.

MarkW
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 4, 2021 8:49 am

Not just the surface, they are claiming they know the exact temperature all the way to the bottom, at every point.

rah
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 3:26 am

What a load of pure merda that graph is! They simply did not have the accurate data for the majority of the ocean waters, that being the Southern Hemisphere, to give any where near a “scientific” conclusion like that graph presents as fact!

Richard M
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 5:28 am

Thanks, Loydo. What you have shown is that natural ocean warming, which correlates very well with changes in ocean salinity, have been the driver of the recent warming. It is likely that this natural warming has been enhanced by pollution from humans.

Reducing CO2 will have no effect on global temperature. It is possible that cleaning up our oceans would help slightly.

M Courtney
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 7:57 am

There is a curious rule of climate that heat goes to where the observations are least.
Heat in 1st world countries? No.
Heat in unpopulated arctic regions and the bottom of the ocean? Yes.
It’s a fourth Law of Thermodynamics and only applies in Climate Science.
Perhaps it’s a quantum effect? Observation collapses the wave function meaning the heat isn’t there.
Perhaps this also explains the Loch Ness Monster?

Anon
Reply to  M Courtney
May 4, 2021 6:13 pm

That is brilliant!!! 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 8:48 am

Anyone trying to claim that we know the temperature of the entire ocean to within a thousandth of a degree back in 1950 is either a complete liar, or totally delusional.
In Loydo’s case, both are possible.

Steve Z
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 9:04 am

The “ocean heating” graph is totally meaningless, since the earliest Argos measurements only date from 2003, near the end of the graph. Earlier sea surface temperature measurements were mostly from ships or buoys dipping a thermometer into the water, accurate to maybe 1 C (or maybe 1 F = 0.56 C).

The total volume of the oceans is estimated as 1.33*10^18 m3, which would have a mass of roughly 1.33 * 10^21 kg. At a specific heat of about 4.2 kJ/kg-C, it would take about 5.6*10^24 Joules to heat the entire ocean up by 1 degree C.

The “Ocean Heating” of about 200*10^21 Joules shown on the graph since 1970 would be enough to heat the entire ocean by only 0.036 C.

But we don’t have measurements of deep-sea temperatures to anywhere near that precision before 2003, and any surface temperature measurements (subject to rounding error) could not be extrapolated into the deep ocean (or any areas of the ocean surface not sampled, out of shipping lanes).

The “Ocean Heating” graph is not based on actual data, since it shows a heat gain over 35 years of less than 10% of round-off error for a surface temperature measurement in Fahrenheit. Is it based on computer models, which have been shown to be worse than useless for the atmosphere?

JamesD
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 9:16 am

As pointed out in the other article, your graph depends on detecting a 0.005C increase in temperature per decade. Even now our temperature readings for the oceans are incomplete.

Cheshire Red
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 12:47 pm

Amazing how ‘atmospheric greenhouse gasses’ are leaving such a lack of warming imprint in the actual atmosphere that advocates are now putting on their deep sea diving gear in a desperate attempt to find atmospheric warming.

Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 1:42 pm

The entire Southern ocean has cooled 3 degrees C from the Holocene optimum till now – a much larger heat anomaly:

Divergent trends in land and ocean temperature \par in the Southern Ocean over the past 18,000 years (researchgate.net)

SSTs declined 1.5 degrees in the mid Norwegian Sea over the same period:

Divergent trends in land and ocean temperature \par in the Southern Ocean over the past 18,000 years (researchgate.net)

And at one location in Svalbard August temperatures were 6 C warmer than now in the Holocene optimum

The-Holocene-Thermal-Maximum-around-Svalbard-Arctic-North-Atlantic-molluscs-show-early-and-exceptional-warmth.pdf (researchgate.net)

Thus the “ocean heating” that you describe is miniscule compared to ocean temperature changes that have happened due to normal background climate dynamics over the Holocene.

Loydo
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
May 5, 2021 12:23 am

“The entire Southern ocean has cooled 3 degrees C from the Holocene optimum till now – a much larger heat anomaly”

Actually no. This is refering to cooling SST; 3 degrees over 8000 years. Modern SST warming is an order of magnitude faster.

comment image

“Thus the “ocean heating” that you describe is miniscule compared to ocean temperature changes that have happened due to normal background climate dynamics over the Holocene.”

Nice switch from SST back to OHC. And btw, using average OHC down to 700m is misleading. Most of the action is at the surface.

to have the same heat capacity as the atmosphere, you a little over two meters of ocean”

 “But only about the first 70 meters of the ocean is well-mixed on time scales of seasons, So on time scales of seasons, the ocean mixedlayer has about 30 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere”

 https://atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/321/321_Lecture_12.pdf

If Bunkton was looking at SST pauses instead of atmospheric, but still ignoring the significant trend, it would be about 10 times as informative… but still uninformative.

ATheoK
Reply to  Loydo
May 4, 2021 6:59 pm

None of that alleged ocean heat content, lolly, is above the error bars of the equipment collecting it.

When placed into it’s correct Celsius mode, that alleged ocean heat calculates to tiny fractions of a degree °C per decade.

Nor does the entire ocean match that faux NOAA temperature profile.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 4, 2021 2:26 am

The issue with the method used by Mr. Monckton it is likely going to produce a “pause” of over 20 years. The reason being the large El Nino of 2016 which raised global temperatures by about 0.4 degrees before falling back down. If you combine that temporally localised spike with a background amount of warming of 0.14 degrees per decade you can see that it will be about 20 years or so before the average temperature is higher than the El Nino spike. That means there will be 20 years of Mr. Monckton claiming there is a pause in global warming despite the fact that the temperature is continually rising.

B Clarke
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 2:42 am

I don’t think what you said makes any sense , if as you state we will have twenty years of cooling how can that not effect 0.14 of warming ? The data started around 1979 thats 42 years or so ,twenty years of cooling will significantly dint or wipe out a 0.14 rise, depending on actual measurements.

MarkW
Reply to  B Clarke
May 4, 2021 8:52 am

Izaak isn’t here to make sense, he’s here to distract and confuse.

B Clarke
Reply to  MarkW
May 4, 2021 2:08 pm

There’s a few about tonight , chris is a new one, just been sent over from agw hq

Izaak Walton
Reply to  B Clarke
May 4, 2021 4:14 pm

I never said there would be twenty years of cooling. I said that the algorithm used by Mr. Monckton is likely to produce a pause of 20 years despite the earth continuing to warm at the same rate as it is currently. The reason being the large El Nino of 2016 which allows people to claim no warming since the current temperature is below the peak of the 2016 El Nino.

B Clarke
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 4:32 pm

The word pause in context to what you said to Mike jonas means cooling Moncktons pause the whole debate is about a 6 year cooling ,,to follow, the pause is a cooling trend for 6 years

Pause in context is cooling this is the second pause ,

What exactly do you think the meaning is of what you wrote? ” a pause of twenty years” what is Moncktons pause do you mean hes going on holiday for twenty years ,hes saying temperatures will not move at all for twenty years , or is the pause a pause in rising temperatures = a cooling as his graph demonstrates.

You really need to grow up boy .

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 2:52 am

Poor izzy-the-dumbest.

Still can’t figure it out can you , muppet !!

As you say the EL NINO raised the temperature..

…. so NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN CO2 !!

And yes, it was a transient, now dissipated. !

And no , there ISN’T a background warming of 0.14ºC/decade, that calculation come from the El Ninos

The warming ONLY happens at El Ninos, as you have just told us all.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 4:46 am

And yes, it was a transient, now dissipated. !

Excepted it hasn’t dissipated. The New Monckton Pause is still a quarter of a degree warmer than the Old Monckton Pause.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 4:55 am

“Excepted it hasn’t dissipated.”

ROFLMAO

(Snipped) SUNMOD

Seriously bellhop ! Straight out DENIAL of what’s in front of your eyes..

The temperature is back down to what it was before the El Nino transient

What part of “dissipated” do you not comprehend !!

Last edited 2 months ago by Sunsettommy
Bellman
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 5:23 am

That’s not what is being discussed. Perhaps if you didn’t spend so much time rolling about on the floor you’d see that.

This article is about a supposed pause, looking at a 6 year period and sticking a trend line on it. If you insist this is a meaningful thing to do then you have to take into account where that trend line is. It’s supposedly telling us that there was no warming over a period starting just before the big El Niño and continuing on till today. Some months are cooler, some warmer than the flat trend line, but the assumption of the trend line is that all deviations are just noise around the true value.

Of course you might not agree that this 6 year trend line is useful and that it’s only as warm and as flat as it is because it starts just before the big ol’ El Niño, and I wouldn’t disagree with that, but I would still say that there’s clear evidence of warming not caused by ENSO conditions. The heat from any El Niño does dissipate quickly, but the years afterwards continue to be warmer.

There is an overall statistically significant warming trend in UAH, and it’s difficult to see how that can be caused by El Niños, when ENSO by definition has no trend.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 8:46 am

Short term trends many times become long term trends, especially in non-stationary time sequences with wide geographical variance and wide altitude variance.

JamesD
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 9:23 am

Likely there is warming, but we’ll need confirmation after a few decades of a quiet sun. Which brings up two points:

  1. The warming is NOT catastrophic.
  2. We don’t know how much of the gentle warming is attributable to CO2.
Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 5:32 am

Bellman is probably correct but not aware of the implications. It is likely we would need another La Nina next fall to fully dissipate the warm water that was brought to the surface during the El Nino years of 2014-2020. Only then would we know what the true global temperature is.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard M
May 4, 2021 8:26 am

My question would be, how long do you expect any warming caused by a specific El Niño to last? I can’t see much sign of past El Niño effects lasting much more than a year, though that could be because of the frequency of La Niñas in the following year.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 8:47 am

Is that why the climate alarmists claim “the heat is hiding in the deep oceans”? It would take more than a year for that heat propagated into the deep ocean to dissapate.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 4, 2021 9:29 am

UAH isn’t measuring the heat in the oceans, it’s measuring heat in the troposphere. El Niños release heat stored in the oceans to the surface and then onto the troposphere, but then what happens to it?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 5, 2021 8:25 am

Bellman: “My question would be, how long do you expect any warming caused by a specific El Niño to last?

Bellman: “UAH isn’t measuring the heat in the oceans, it’s measuring heat in the troposphere.”

Quit dissembling. It takes a long time for the heat in the deep ocean to rise to the surface. Assuming that the claim that all the supposed excess heat in the Earth’s thermodynamic system has somehow been transferred into the deep ocean!

What happens to the heat at the surface of the ocean once it is transferred to the troposphere? Several different things can happen to it. Conduction, convection, lapse rate, phase changes, cloud formation, radiation, etc. But none of it gets “TRAPPED”.

Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 11:02 am

“My question would be, how long do you expect any warming caused by a specific El Niño to last? I can’t see much sign of past El Niño effects lasting much more than a year, though that could be because of the frequency of La Niñas in the following year.”

Really, every temperature step up has happened only after an El Nino in the last 30 years. What will happen if we have multiple La Nina’s in the next few years?

Richard Burkel
Reply to  Richard M
May 4, 2021 8:33 am

Said as if we can really know what the ‘true’ global temperature is!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 6:37 am

And this torrid 0.25K is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2?

How?

Richard Burkel
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 4, 2021 8:34 am

Just maybe this torrid 0.25K is within the error bounds?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Burkel
May 4, 2021 11:42 am

Error bounds? What are error bounds? The things that most alarmists leave off their graphs?

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 8:53 am

Now dissipating. Give it a few more years.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
May 4, 2021 9:52 am

Has the 1997/8 El Niño dissipated yet?

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 2:58 am

“The issue…. “

…. is that you can’t handle the truth !!

(Snipped the name calling) SUNMOD

And no, the temperature IS NOT continually rising.

It is still below MWP temperatures and FAR BELOW that of ALMOST ALL of the last 10,000 years.

Last edited 2 months ago by Sunsettommy
John Endicott
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 3:21 am

Great own goal there Izaak, you just admitted that there is no warming except for the occasional el nino spike. congrats.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 8:52 am

In your “opinion”, the fact that the only heat entered into the system in the last 20 years, was the big El Nino of 2016, proves that there are no pauses?

JamesD
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 9:19 am

Continue with that logic. What does that do to the claim of “catastrophic” warming?

Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 10:58 am

izaak

Except the temperature is cooling right now not rising, so much for your continual rising. Only time will tell which way it goes in the future, but I know one thing that is certain and that is that no one actually knows what is going to happen in the future.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  bob boder
May 4, 2021 4:21 pm

Bob,
What do you mean by “right now”? Where I am it is morning and the temperature is rising right now. In 8 hours time it will be night and the temperature will be falling. If you want to say that April 2021 was colder than March 2021 then that is fine but again lots of people would just say that that is too short a timescale to say anything meaningful.

Over a 20 year time scale the earth is warming and has been doing so for the last 100 years or so. And almost all climate scientists would state that the next 20 years will be warmer than the past 20 years.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 11:37 am

Walton
It is NOT “continually rising!” That is the point of the exercise. It is at best, a stair-step increase, with steps several years wide, while the CO2 increase is an exponential increase when the seasonal changes are smoothed.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 8, 2021 9:40 pm

The point is that with ups and downs, the observed trends are less than the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models predicted. UAH 42-year trend is only 0.14C/decade.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 4, 2021 3:51 am

“Roy Spencer’s approach is correct for what he does, but in this case something different is being done and it needs a different method. The aim is to find the longest period ending today for which there has been no warming. So the end date of the period being calculated is defined as being today. The start date is calculated as the earliest date for which the linear temperature trend to the end date is less than or equal to zero.”

Excellent, clear explanation. Thank you.

Bellman
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 4, 2021 4:43 am

The aim is to find the longest period ending today for which there has been no warming.

But what’s the point of that aim? What is anyone trying to prove by it?

If the aim is to see if something unusual is happening to global temperatures you need a better method, something that’s testable statistically.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 4:59 am

As you have shown msny times, there is NOTHING UNUSUAL HAPPENING.

Just the normal NATURAL ebb and flow of the climate.

It just happens to be COOLING at the moment.

NO HUMAN CAUSATION.

Sorry your DENIAL of basic maths is so deeply brain-washed into your little bellhop mind.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 5:29 am

So why claim there is a pause if it’s nothing unusual? A pause implies something was changing and now it’s stopped changing.

Sorry your DENIAL of basic maths is so deeply brain-washed into your little bellhop mind.”

It’s difficult to have a reasoned argument when you talk like that. Could you explain your point and give me some mathematical evidence for it. Then we could decide who understands the math better.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 6:04 am

(Snipped out the name calling garbage, you need to back off on the personal attacks on people) SUMOD

CHANGE IS NORMAL in climate.

There will be warming, cooling and stationary periods in the NATURAL CLIMATE.

NONE of this is UNUSUAL.

And as you continue to show, NONE OF THIS HAS HUMAN CAUSATION.

You do know that April’s temperature anomaly was BELOW that of about 70% months of this century, don’t you.

Or is CLIMATE DENIAL all you have left in your pitiful bellhop existence.

Last edited 2 months ago by Sunsettommy
Peter buchan
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 10:45 am

Mods, please get this Fred250 person to calm down and adjust his tone – or get him off the site till he cools off. Does the image of WUWT no good. Nor the subject matter. Serious followers of climate and other complex issues don’t need to be subjected to such puerile histrionics.

Best

Peter

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 5:51 am

Is CO2 concentration risen over this time? Why would average temps have not risen also?

Your decrying averages is remarkable when you then turn around and use averages to declare warming. Why is one average better than another?

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 4, 2021 6:26 am

I’m not sure what point you are making. I didn’t say anything about averages in the post you are replying to. My concern is that if you want to persuade someone that there has been a pause in global warming you need to demonstrate how such a claim can be tested. Otherwise, how can you distinguish between something that is actually happening, and something that is just random chance?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 7:57 am

Where the fcuk does random chance come into this Mr. Calculator-dodger. Just as it warms for real reasons, that are not related to CO2, the Earth cools for real reasons too.

This entire post and comment thread shows how the claim is being tested.

Bellman
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 4, 2021 8:35 am

By “random chance” I just meant unpredictable variation independent of a trend line.

Random isn’t a good choice of words, they will usually have causes, such as ENSO, but the effects are to distort any short term calculated trend. If there’s am usually cool year at the start and or a warm year towards the end you will see a spuriously fast rate of warming. Similarly a spuriously slow or negative rate of warming if you start high and finish low. By spurious I mean rates that are not going to reflect the longer term trend.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 8:52 am

I didn’t say anything about averages in the post you are replying to. “

ROFL! What do you think the “average global temperature” is other than an AVERAGE! It is the “average global temperature” that is being used by the climate alarmists to say the earth is *warming*!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 4, 2021 9:37 am

OK, so yes we are talking about global and monthly averages.

But the claim was I’m “decrying averages”, and was asked “why is one average better than another?”. I’m still not sure what point is being made.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 5, 2021 8:38 am

f the aim is to see if something unusual is happening to global temperatures you need a better method, something that’s testable statistically.”

And exactly what is *not* testable statistically about the length of the pause? The use of linear trend lines of past data to prognosticate on the future isn’t supportable statistically either, especially on time data. Statistics only works on actual data, where does the future data come from other than opinion?

If you are going to criticize the calculation of the pause then you need to be consistent and criticize the supposed “calculation” of future temperatures!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 5, 2021 9:14 am

And exactly what is *not* testable statistically about the length of the pause?

The question wasn’t about testing the length of the pause, but about testing if it’s unusual. As I showed last time there are many 6 year periods that are flat, sharply down or sharply up in the last 40 years, there’s nothing unusual here.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/04/the-new-pause-lengthens-by-three-months-to-5-years-10-months/#comment-3221826

As to how you test the length of a pause – I think it’s a problem because this definition of a pause is too certain. Anything with a non-positive trend. It really dowsn’t make a difference whether the trend is slightly positive or negative when compared with the large uncertainties in the trend over such a short period. Trying to then claim, not only that the trend was flat, but that you know the exact month that flat trend started is statistical nonsense.

If you are going to criticize the calculation of the pause then you need to be consistent and criticize the supposed “calculation” of future temperatures!

If anybody is claiming that a current trend can be projected into the distant future I’d agree that should be criticised. I criticise Lord Monckton when he does that. Claiming that the current trend proves the IPCC projections for future warming must be wrong, on the basis of the rate of warming over the last 40 years.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 5, 2021 4:34 pm

Trying to then claim, not only that the trend was flat, but that you know the exact month that flat trend started is statistical nonsense.”

How does that differ from saying we’ve had a warming trend since the satellites were launched? Doesn’t when the satellite record started also determine if the trend line is up, flat, or down?

And if that is true then the whole warming trend is just as much statistical nonsense as the current pause.

“into the distant future”

Why the “distant future”? Statistical analysis of data only describes the data you have. It simply cannot “create* future data. Extending trend lines of time varying data is nothing more than magical thinking. Since all the climate models all turn into a linear equation after about ten years with no recognition of any of the cycles we already know of, exactly how accurate can they be in predicting the future out through the rest of the century?

Claiming that the current trend proves the IPCC projections for future warming must be wrong, on the basis of the rate of warming over the last 40 years.”

Why must it be wrong? It is an opinion. Just as the IPCC projection is a subjective OPINION, not fact.

If one is wrong because it is an opinion based on interpretation of current data then the other must be wrong for the very same reason.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 6, 2021 5:40 am

How does that differ from saying we’ve had a warming trend since the satellites were launched?

Well for one thing the start date is fixed by the fact we have no data before the satellite data begins. For another, we’re talking about a 40+ year which means big shocks to the data end up having little effect on the overall trend. And we have the a confidence interval that is a lot narrower than you get for the last 6 years.

The trend across the entire UAH data set is +0.136°C / decade, but according to the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator the 2σ confidence interval is around ± 0.05°C / decade. By contrast the confidence interval over the last 6 years is at least ± 0.7°C .decade.

One way of gauging how much faith to put in the trend is to try changing the start and end date a little. Start or finish the long term trend a year eaither way and there’s very little change in the overall trend. Do the same with this pause period and you can easily see warming trends faster than the long term trend or ones cooling at just as quickly. Hence the problem of claiming the pause started in a specific month.

“Why the “distant future”? Statistical analysis of data only describes the data you have. It simply cannot “create* future data.

“Distant future was just a turn of phrase. I don’t think you can project current linear warming rates to the end of the century, there’s no reason to suppose continued warming will be constant. Even in a simple system what appears to be a linear trend can be curved in many ways that won;t become clear until later, and the earth’s climate is not a simple system.

But I disagree that it’s not possible to use a trend to project a little outside it’s data range, you just have to be very cautious about interpreting the result. You’re not creating new data, your just trying to predict what the new data will be.

Extending trend lines of time varying data is nothing more than magical thinking.

Yet so many do that here all the time.

Since all the climate models all turn into a linear equation after about ten years with no recognition of any of the cycles we already know of…

See, you’re doing it now, assuming that cycles we know of can be projected into the future.

…exactly how accurate can they be in predicting the future out through the rest of the century?

I’ve little idea how climate models work and don’t know how accurate they will be, but using linear equations is not the same as projecting a trend line to the end of the century.

Why must it be wrong?

OK, I’ll rephrase it. It’s Lord Monckton’s subjective opinion that the models are wrong.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 6, 2021 1:56 pm

Well for one thing the start date is fixed by the fact we have no data before the satellite data begins.”

So what? Did the universe only start when we first launched satellites?

“For another, we’re talking about a 40+ year which means big shocks to the data end up having little effect on the overall trend.”

The overall trend is based on millenia or epochs! Big shocks are indications to look for periodic cycles that the period may not be long enough for.

“The trend across the entire UAH data set is +0.136°C / decade, but according to the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator the 2σ confidence interval is around ± 0.05°C / decade. By contrast the confidence interval over the last 6 years is at least ± 0.7°C .decade.”

Those confidence levels are trash, at least in my opinion. They are based on data that has a higher uncertainty than that! The measurement instruments have a basic uncertainty of +/- 0.5C! When combining the independent measurements from independent devices the uncertainty grows from there! A confidence interval of +/- 0.05C is a physical impossibility when the uncertainty interval starts off higher than that!

“One way of gauging how much faith to put in the trend is to try changing the start and end date a little.”

You can’t do that with the satellite record. There is no way to change the start date a “little”. So what does that do to how much faith you put in the trend?

” I don’t think you can project current linear warming rates to the end of the century, there’s no reason to suppose continued warming will be constant.”

Well, you got this one right!

“But I disagree that it’s not possible to use a trend to project a little outside it’s data range, you just have to be very cautious about interpreting the result. You’re not creating new data, your just trying to predict what the new data will be.”

No, you aren’t “predicting”. You are GUESSING. And the guess is usually a subjective one – meaning it is an opinion – especially when it is based on using data whose uncertainty interval is wider than what you are trying to predict.

“Yet so many do that here all the time.”

But not based on extending data series using guesses. E.g. predicting that the sea temps are controlled by certain physical processes that constrain the temps is not extending data series.


tpg: “Since all the climate models all turn into a linear equation after about ten years with no recognition of any of the cycles we already know of…

bell: “See, you’re doing it now, assuming that cycles we know of can be projected into the future.”

Cycles *are* predictable. Especially when their evidence can be established over hundreds of years – e.g. sun activity. What values the recurring cycles might generate may not be predictable but the cycles themselves can be!

I’ve little idea how climate models work and don’t know how accurate they will be, but using linear equations is not the same as projecting a trend line to the end of the century.”

A linear trend using data whose uncertainties are wider than the differences that are trying to be identified through the use of a trend line is a fools errand. Assuming that a calculated average is 100% accurate in order to develop a trend line is only fooling yourself, something Feynman warned against.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 6, 2021 5:06 pm

So what? Did the universe only start when we first launched satellites?

I said it was absurd to claim you knew the exact month of a trend and that the 6 year trend was flat. You asked how that was different to starting a warming trend at the start of the UAH data set. Now you are talking about the trends before the satellite era. But it doesn’t matter for this argument, because we are only talking about the trend across the satellite data. This trend probably didn’t start on December 1978, and I make no claims that it was going on in perpetuity across the millennia. My argument was purely that a trend measured across an entire data set of 40+ years is more significant than one based on 6 years, starting at a specific date to make a specific point.

Those confidence levels are trash, at least in my opinion.

And in my opinion your opinion is wrong, as I’ve tried to explain before. But, could you at least provide your own estimate? What do you think the uncertainty of the trend should be? If it’s greater than the trend after 40 years it doesn’t say much for the usefulness of the UAH data, or for the Monckton Pause?

They are based on data that has a higher uncertainty than that!

But as I’ve tried to explain before the uncertainty in the measurements is accounted for in any calculation of the uncertainties of the trend. What matters for that is the amount of variance in the data, high variance means less certainty in the trend. If the data has high uncertainty it will also have higher variance. The ways uncertainty are calculated are well established, and if you are claiming that they are wrong, you need to show your workings.

The measurement instruments have a basic uncertainty of +/- 0.5C!

They do? I’ve never been able to find any estimate of how accurate individual satellite reading are, but there was time when you’d be called a satellite unbeliever for doubting their accuracy.

But of course it’s largely irrelevant as the monthly global average doesn’t consist of one measurement, but on hundreds (or is it thousands?) made every day, and 30 days averaged to make one month. And that reduces the uncertainty…

When combining the independent measurements from independent devices the uncertainty grows from there!

… except according to you averaging increases the uncertainty. We’ve been over this before, and you are still wrong (in my opinion).

But, here, are you really saying that the uncertainty of any monthly average in UAH data is greater than 0.5C? If so it makes a nonsense of every post by Roy Spencer here announcing the latest monthly figure. April 2021 was -0.05C below the 1991-2020 average, but in reality might have been more that 0.45C above it.

You can’t do that with the satellite record. There is no way to change the start date a “little”. So what does that do to how much faith you put in the trend?

Sure there is. The trend across the entire range is 1.36 / decade, the trend from 1980 to present is 1.36 / decade, the trend from December 1978 to the start of 2020 is 1.32 / decade.

Contrast with the pause. Trend from May 2015 to April 2021 (the current pause) is -0.03 / decade, the trend from May 2014 to April 2021 is +0.18 / decade, trend from January 2016 to April 2021 is -0.18 / decade.

(I’ll end this here as it’s getting far too long. Might return to rest of the post later.)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 11:56 am

Looking at long-term temperatures, it is evident that what is happening is not just random chance fluctuations about a consistent trend. This appears to be more than just runs in tossing a die. There appears to be random-chance fluctuations about a platform with no trend, followed by a sharp jump upwards associated with El Nino events, since about 1964 when the previous regime bottomed out. CO2 forcing is a poor model for such behavior.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 6:38 am

No CO2 spike, anywhere. This is the point.

Editor
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 7:33 am

As I said: “The notion of the length of the “pause” came from a statement from I think UEA (University of East Anglia in the UK) that it would take a ten-year period of no warming to disprove the models.”.

Bellman
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 4, 2021 8:16 am

An exact quote would be useful. I’ve heard similar claims before, usually talking about 15 years, and they normally seem to be say that you need a period at least that long to consider doubting the models.

It makes no sense from a statistical sense to put a fixed length as necessary.

Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 11:13 am

An exact quote would be useful. I’ve heard similar claims before, usually talking about 15 years, and they normally seem to be say that you need a period at least that long to consider doubting the models.”

True that’s what they say now, but of course that is only after the 10+ year pause. Be for that it was 8-10 years which they thought would never happen.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bob boder
May 5, 2021 5:02 am

“True that’s what they say now, but of course that is only after the 10+ year pause. Before that it was 8-10 years which they thought would never happen”

It’s so nice when the truth comes out! 🙂

Bellman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 6, 2021 6:14 am

Again, a quote would be helpful.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 12:01 pm

It relates to the probability of a run of heads (or tails) with the toss of a coin. The longer the run, the lower the probability of it continuing. It goes back to your claim of “random chance” of fluctuations.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 8:49 am

A warming pause is “unusual”? Your mindset is betrayed by your words.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 4, 2021 9:42 am

Yes, because it’s a deviation from the trend of the last few decades. No moral implication, if temperatures had been flat for decades and then started warming it would be unusual. Maybe not the best choice of words, but if it’s not unusual why have we seen all these monthly posts talking about it?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 5, 2021 8:41 am

And what if the trend of the past few decades is a deviation from the trend of past 100 years? Temperatures were *not* flat for decades. They went way high in the 20’s and 30’s and then cooled. Then they went up again. So what is so unusual about a pause between the cycles?

Once again, your words betray your mindset.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 6, 2021 6:12 am

Nothing’s necessarily unusual about a “pause between the cycles”, but you cannot just look at 6 years and claim that is happening.

If this is the high point of a cycle than that would be interesting, but I’d like to see some statistical evidence for it. Six years ago it could have been claimed that pause represented a pause between cycles, but since then temperatures carried on warming.

Joe H
Reply to  Bellman
May 8, 2021 1:04 am

The length of the current calculated pause is significant in the context of the variance (noise) in the temperature record. Santer’s (generally well-regarded paper https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD016263) indicated that 17 years length is important to distinguish the signal of human influence on climate from just random variation. We’re not near 17 years at this point but were past it before ’15/16 EN arrived (this had climate catastrophists in a scramble to explain how that happened!). It is interesting to see the length of the current pause but it is not yet statistically significant.

Hopefully, this might help somewhat in the row that has developed here.

Joe H
Reply to  Joe H
May 8, 2021 1:05 am

Sorry – in my first line it should say ‘important’ not ‘significant’ as it might be confused as meaning stat sig which it isn’t.

Bellman
Reply to  Joe H
May 8, 2021 5:09 am

The paper says you need at least 17 years to see a signal of human influence. That’s not the same as saying if you see no trend for 17 years there is no human influence.

The trend over the last 17 years, since May 2004, is 0.24°C / decade.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
May 8, 2021 6:11 am

All 17 year trends in UAH.

20210508wuwtcomment1.png
Dave Fair
Reply to  Bellman
May 8, 2021 10:26 pm

It has been warming for 300 years. It warmed during the early 20th Century at a rate comparable with today’s warming rate. CO2 is not the control knob for temperatures. UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models are bunk.

JamesD
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 9:25 am

To track the length of the pauses.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 11:46 am

But what’s the point of that aim? What is anyone trying to prove by it?

That claims by the likes of you that the temperature is continually rising is false. Your false simplification hides a more complex phenomena.

Doonman
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 10:43 pm

The aim is to show that continually rising CO2 levels do not cause continually rising global temperatures, unlike what CAGW proponents say. And that’s exactly what is shown by the pause of a rising linear trend.

There should never be a pause. Stop claiming otherwise or you’re a science denier.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bellman
May 8, 2021 9:52 pm

The last pause lasted 17 or 18 years. CliSciFi practitioners themselves said that a pause of 10 to 15 years would invalidate their climate models. The UAH 0.14C/decade trend is far less than that the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models predicted. There is no tropospheric hot spot as predicted by their models. Get over it … CAGW is falsified.

Bellman
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2021 10:20 am

CliSciFi practitioners themselves said that a pause of 10 to 15 years would invalidate their climate models.

Citation required. The only paper I’ve been pointed to here, said that you would need at least a 17 year trend to confirm the models, not to falsify them.

The last pause lasted 17 or 18 years.

That was 6 years ago, people were predicting the end of warming, the start of a new ice age. What’s happened since then? Temperatures shot up by around 0.25°C, and the all important 17 year trend is now warming at the rate of 0.24°C / decade. Conclusion, even 17 years isn’t a good length of time to establish what the climate is doing.

The UAH 0.14C/decade trend is far less than that the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models predicted.

Then why obsess over imaginary pauses?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bellman
May 9, 2021 12:40 pm

1) “Citation required.” It is not my duty to keep you up on current events.

2) “… people were predicting the end of warming …” No, people were saying then, as now, that the CliSciFi models run wildly hot; which has been demonstrated numerous times in many ways.

3) “Then why obsess over imaginary pauses?” The 17+year pause is factual. Why do you obsess over denying it and its importance in evaluating UN IPCC CliSciFi models?

Bellman
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2021 3:00 pm

It is not my duty to keep you up on current events.

Then we are at an impasse, as it’s not my duty to believe everything you say.

No, people were saying then, as now, that the CliSciFi models run wildly hot;

I didn’t say everyone said it, but you can find many people here then and now who are quick to claim we are at the top of a cycle or the sun is about to shut down.

The 17+year pause is factual. Why do you obsess over denying it and its importance in evaluating UN IPCC CliSciFi models?

And is the 6 year pause factual as well? I don’t obsess over the pause, I don’t even deny it as an abstract concept, I just don’t like seeing bad statistics being used to imply something that hasn’t been established. It’s difficult to evaluate the importance of a pause when it can be anything people want it to be.

If you want me to take any pause seriously, first define what it means , then show what statistical tests to establish that it isn’t simply noise; that it exists in reality and not just as a line on a graph. Then demonstrate how it has altered our understanding of climate change, what implications it might have for future changes etc.

I find this whole argument that in some way that pauses are slowing down the rate of warming (or maybe they reflect the rate of warming, no one seems to be clear) odd, in that

a) a simple examination of UAH trends show that each pause causes the warming trend to increase.

b) the claim that the UAH warming rate is less than predicted is undermined by also claiming there was some significant pausing event taking up half the time period. Of course the warming rate is lower than predicted if there was an unexplained and unpredictable pausing event.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bellman
May 9, 2021 3:31 pm

Bellman, I am going to assume you are being purposefully obtuse.

Datasets covering ocean, land and atmospheric temperature trends prove that our Earth system is not as sensitive to anthropomorphic GHG emissions as assumed in the vast majority of UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models. The atmospheric temperature pause over a 17-year period puts the final nail in the CAGW coffin. CAGW was only in the extremely wild predictions coming from “hot” UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models using impossible future scenarios of future development.

Anyway, adios forever, Bellman.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 4, 2021 5:29 am

The notion of the length of the “pause” came from a statement from I think UEA (University of East Anglia in the UK) that it would take a ten-year period of no warming to disprove the models.

For satellite data of the troposphere (and lower stratosphere ?) I think Santer et al (2011, full title “Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes : The importance of timescale”) is more relevant :

Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi‐model ensemble of anthropogenically‐forced simulations displays many 10‐year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature.

JamesD
Reply to  Mark BLR
May 4, 2021 9:29 am

Interesting. 17 years. 6 years is too short, but 17 years is correct. Did he take into account long term sun cycles? Multi-decadal ocean cycles?

MARTIN BRUMBY
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 2:10 am

Of course, the next challenge to our GangGreen psyentists is to show credible evidence that the trivial amount of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is anything other than beneficial.

Total failure to do so far, despite all the mendacious agit-prop.

Then they might like to demonstrate that the hundreds of billions thrown to useless Ruinables has benefited anyone other than themselves.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 4:44 am

Izaak,
At what linear trend would you conclude that there is no significant risk of catastrophe?

Clearly you think that +1.4 degrees per century is an emergency. Looking at my 10-day weather forecast, the range of daily temperatures is between 6 and 13 degrees C. I’m supposed to be able to sense this 0.000038 degree per day of warming?

Second question—how is it possible for temperature to level off for 6 years when we all know that CO2 has been rising relentlessly? Is there some natural variation more powerful than the master control knob of CO2?

Not expecting any serious response of course.

(Edited to correct 7 yrs to 6)

Last edited 2 months ago by Rich Davis
BobM
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 5:09 am

But the “start of satellite measurements” in 1979 is in itself an inadvertent cherry pick, as it was, or was very close to, the coldest year of the 1970’s “coming ice age”. Almost any series of years after that showed “warming”.

What would UAH be showing if the “start of the satellite measurements” was 1939 instead of 1979?

Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 6:18 am

Reflect about he question, that was “pause”. If the question was “trend”, it’s different, but that wasn’t the question.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 8:43 am

Once again Izaak demonstrates that he is willing to lie in order to protect his paycheck.
Why is picking today, cherry picking?
And nobody is “picking” the end point. The math does that.

kwinterkorn
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 9:09 am

The 1979 start of the current satellite measurements conveniently coincided with the end of 30 years of cooling that led the alarmists of that era to warn we were headed into a new ice age.

That cooling biases upwards the last 40+ years of trends.

Using 1979 has been very convenient for the current crop of warming alarmists, but it should carry an asterisk (*) with every usage.

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 3, 2021 10:24 pm

Poor izzy-dumb STILL doesn’t comprehend the concept, despite it being explained MANY times.

So Funny that he would continue to broadcast that fact.

NOTHING is cherry-picked, you poor mathematically inept twit !

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
Graemethecat
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 3, 2021 11:52 pm

Where is the Thermageddon we’ve all been promised by Alarmists like you?

MarkW
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 4, 2021 8:55 am

It’s in the 100 and 1000 year forecasts.

Rune
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 12:32 am

A hypothesis is less than useless when it makes inaccurate predictions.

As it currently stands, it looks like a coin-toss whether we in a few years will see a pause that extends all the way back to 1997 or not.

It does not make sense to waste so much resources on something that most likely is a non-problem. Look at the pandemic and how many died because we were badly prepared. Maybe less focus on CAGW would have allowed more resources spent on helping society prepare for something like covid-19. CAGW kills, but not in the way certain activists claim.

Ron Long
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 3:12 am

Izaak Walton, Loydo, and Griff are examples of Social Science substituting for actual Science. I would be traumatized by taking a current Social Science class in a University.

fred250
Reply to  Ron Long
May 4, 2021 3:19 am

Those three have most definitely been traumatized.. mentally.

It shows in their every post.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
May 4, 2021 4:05 am

My Univeristy Social Science teacher would probably be the one traumatized, if I were in class. 🙂

Scissor
Reply to  Ron Long
May 4, 2021 4:46 am

I think that data point should be considered as part of critical idiot theory.

Scissor
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 4:28 am

Forgot cherry picking, I just want to plant some tomato seedlings in my garden and the cold weather has not be cooperative. In my decades of gardening in this locale, I’ve not been forced to delay planting for so late. I hope that this is just a temporary thing.

rah
Reply to  Scissor
May 4, 2021 11:37 am

And you won’t have any cherries to pick either if the blossoms get frost nipped. You may have to do what they did during the LIA! Switch to potatoes!

philincalifornia
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 8:00 am

The fact that Mr. Monckton is claiming that the pause has increased by two months since last month should be a strong sign that this is not a meaningful definition.”

Or in other words, yes you do need a remedial course in elementary mathematics. I think I could have figured that one out when I was 10 or younger.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 8:42 am

As usual, Izaak pops in to demonstrate that either he understands nothing, or is trying to distract from reality.
If the temperature on the back end is a rising curve, it is trivial for the pause to extend by more than one month per month.
Indeed when this pause connects with the previous pause, the pause will extend by 20 years in one big jump.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 9:12 am

It depends on your definition of “is”.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ResourceGuy
May 4, 2021 12:06 pm

I think the complete quote is, “It depends on what your meaning of is, is.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 11:26 am

Walton
I want to congratulate you. It has only been 13 hours and you are very close to the record previously held by griff for the number of negative votes. You are in a favorable position for breaking that record! I’m rooting for you! Either way, you are in aloof company.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 4, 2021 3:40 pm

griff hit -101 if memory serves, he’s got a fine start toward the record.

Doonman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
May 4, 2021 1:16 pm

The facts are according to theory is that as long as CO2 is rising in the atmosphere, there should never be a pause in the trend of warming at all, ever.

But there is. More than once. And you refuse to address it, instead choosing to name call instead. Very sciencey of you.

Zig Zag Wanderer
May 3, 2021 10:24 pm

0.02C per century. Be afraid. Be very afraid!

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 3, 2021 10:29 pm

Just in the same way that a 1.1degree rise in temperature in a room wouldn’t even be noticed by most people, a similar temperature rise globally over 150 years wouldn’t be noticed by most people!!!

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 3, 2021 10:35 pm

Most people would be dead after 150 years.

Michael Arko
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
May 3, 2021 11:30 pm

A ha!! End of the world!!

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
May 4, 2021 3:13 am

Speak for yourself! 😉

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 4, 2021 4:35 am

At 150 you will get a telegram from the Queen

TheFinalNail
May 3, 2021 10:40 pm

Since the start of this most recent “pause”, the long term trend in global temperature, according to UAH, hasn’t budged from +0.14C per decade warming.

6 years is 72 months. I found 156 individual 72 month episodes in UAH (using a running, centred 72 month filter, such that many of these overlap) in which there is either zero or a negative trend. Yet +0.14C long term warming prevails.

This gives some indication as to the value of 6 year periods when assessing long term trends.

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 3, 2021 10:46 pm

Poor old bent and rusty.

In denial of the cooling trend.

So funny. !

Cooler month than 70% of the months this century !!

And more to come. !

So hard for you to admit that climate is driven by natural cycles, and not human CO2, hey rusty

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  fred250
May 3, 2021 11:49 pm

That would make April 2021 the 10th coldest non-winter month of the 21st century? Winter months = December, January,, and February.

fred250
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
May 4, 2021 12:11 am

No, winter is in June, July August. 😉

Seriously though…..

Since this is a so-called “global” value, there are no effective seasons.

Scissor
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 4:43 am

Wait for the final final nail. It’s coming just you wait.

fred250
Reply to  Scissor
May 4, 2021 5:02 am

Poor dolt’s fingers must be really sore from the consistent swing and miss.

John Peter
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 3, 2021 11:41 pm

Don’t forget that UAH started at a time when all the renowned scientists proclaimed that the next ice age is ‘just round the corner’.

Graemethecat
Reply to  John Peter
May 4, 2021 3:05 am

For some reason, Alarmists get very upset when they are reminded of the predictions of Global Cooling in the 1970’s. I can’t imagine why.

fred250
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 4, 2021 3:21 am

They also very often go into DEEP DENIAL, that cannot be broken even by showing them their own words.

Its quite bizarre

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 4:10 am

It’s not bizarre to people deeply immersed in climate delusion. Denying reality is par for the course for such people.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2021 6:03 am

They have to deny now – there is no turning back.

Scissor
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 4, 2021 4:42 am

No worries, we all died when peak oil was passed 20 years ago or perhaps it was all the crop failures 40 years ago.

Doonman
Reply to  John Peter
May 4, 2021 3:10 pm

Don’t forget, the reason we launched satellites at all was to find the trophospherical hot spot that theory predicted must exist and couldn’t be found in surface temperature data sets or weather balloon data sets. Of course, when they couldn’t be found in satellite data sets either, the satellites were wrong because the science was already settled.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 4, 2021 8:03 am

He is talking about NOW going back 6 years, how come that is so hard for you to understand?

He isn’t disputing the trend from 1979 at all.

Last edited 2 months ago by Sunsettommy
paul courtney
Reply to  Sunsettommy
May 4, 2021 10:29 am

Mr. tommy: I wonder why these guys think “being obtuse” is persuasive. Here, Mr. Nail thinks we are “assessing a long term trend”, then he talks like Monckton is trying to establish a trend. Six years may not establish a trend, but we’re not trying to establish a trend. Question to Mr. Nail- Are we allowed to “assess” a long-term trend (AGW says trend is warming in line with CO2) by looking at parts of it?

Richard Burkel
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 4, 2021 8:41 am

So 0.14C prevails long term even though CO2 is increasing? Doesn’t that hint that CO2 has nothing to do with it?

JamesD
Reply to  Richard Burkel
May 4, 2021 9:35 am

Actually do to the logarithmic nature of the aborption, we’d expect 0.14C/decade to be as bad as it gets, and the warming trend to slow in the coming decades. Add in the quiet sun, and cooling may emerge. No matter what, “catastrophic” is off the table. Actually the continually increasing crop yields due to CO2 fertilization results in a net benefit.

Graemethecat
Reply to  JamesD
May 4, 2021 11:13 am

A genuine question for the likes of Griff and Loydo: at what point will you accept that warming is over, and the Earth is moving into a cold phase?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 4, 2021 10:42 pm

They don’t have to.

The next paper from John Cook and the spirit of Joseph Goebbels will be entitled “97% of climate scientists agree that global warming has caused global cooling”.

….. and, don’t laugh, they will actually believe it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 5, 2021 5:09 am

Michael Mann has already tried to cover this base. He claimed some time ago that even a decade or two of cooling would not invalidate the Human-caused Climate Change hypothesis.

Maybe not to him, but I bet the rest of the human population will notice.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 5, 2021 6:57 am

And yet, twenty five years on, still no hockey stick.

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 4, 2021 8:59 am

All long term trends start as short term trends.

Yes, the world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Thank God.

However if you want a longer term trend, the world has been cooling for the last 7000 years.

I love the way warmistas actually believe that the world started in 1860.

JamesD
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 4, 2021 9:32 am

So nothing catastrophic.

Doonman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 4, 2021 3:00 pm

What trends did you find over the long term period known as the holocene? That might give you an indication too. Those silly Romans, building ports four miles inland. Those silly early Europeans, crawling under glaciers to leave artifacts and die. And of course, those silly Vikings, colonizing Greenland and growing crops and grazing animals.

fred250
May 3, 2021 10:43 pm

did you know..

that this April was COOLER than about 70% of the months this century !!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 4:13 am

That definitely applies to the area where I live. It’s been unseasonably chilly. My neighbor lost some of his crop last month because of a late freeze that occurred three weeks later than the usual last freeze date.

I would love to see this cool continue through the summer, but experience tells me it is going to be hot around here because it usually always is in the summertime. 🙂

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 4:51 am

And warmer than 80% of the months in the last two decades of the last century.

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 5:55 am

Most of those last two decades of the 1900s saw a negative AMO as well as a couple of major volcanic eruptions. They should have been cooler from natural factors.

I find it humorous that the same people who want to blame the current cooling on La Nina also go into pure denial when you mention the natural climate factors that have influenced the overall satellite trend.

If one were to remove those natural factors it is likely the warming trend is cut in half. What is not very scary becomes trivial.

Bellman
Reply to  Richard M
May 4, 2021 6:29 am

I’m making no claims about what caused any warming. It could all be due to natural causes, but it still wouldn’t mean that there hasn’t been warming.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 8:58 am

What warming? It’s not as hot today as it was in the 30’s. If the satellite record went back to 1900 what would the trend show?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 4, 2021 9:57 am

The warming observed by UAH since December 1978. The warming that is being claimed stopped in May 2015.The data set this post is about. I can’t help you with speculating on what satellites would have seen in 1930s.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 5, 2021 8:15 am

In other words you aren’t interested in what is really happening. Only in what confirms your biases. Kind of what I figured.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 6, 2021 6:18 am

Sorry, I didn’t realize UAH wasn’t indicating what was really happening.

I see you’re talking about the 30s, so presumably have so definitive evidence that it’s not now as hot as the 30s, but it’s still fruitless to speculate what the satellites would have seen in 1900.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
May 6, 2021 2:11 pm

go here: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures

go here: https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/record-minimum-and-maximum-temperatures-in-the-us/

The high record for 25 states were in the 30’s, 6 additional states set their high record in the 50’s. Only 3 states have set their high temp record since 2000.

Doesn’t sound like we are anywhere near as hot today as it was earlier in the century. That may be an inconvenient truth for you but it is the truth nonetheless.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 6, 2021 5:20 pm

Neither link talking about global temperatures, or average annual temperatures. Records are a poor way of establishing overall temperatures, by definition they only show extremes.

There were a lot of heat waves in the USA during the 30s, also some cold winters. Even in the USA overall temperatures were not as warm throughout the 30s as thy are in recent years. Globally temperatures in the 30s weren’t as warm as in the 40s.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

Richard M
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 5:51 am

I like to look at 2001 as a compatible month for comparison purposes. We were also coming out of a La Nina. It is an apples to apples comparison. The April anomaly was .08. It was warmer than we are right now. That is a full two decades of no warming.

RoHa
May 3, 2021 10:43 pm

I’m still confused. When did the Old Pause (1967 – ) end? When did the New Pause begin? And what happened between the two pauses?

RickWill
Reply to  RoHa
May 3, 2021 11:34 pm

Just put it down to measurement error.

Ponder this – what is the global average sea surface temperature.
A. Is it only the ice free surface?
B. Does it include the water surface beneath the ice?
C. Does it include the temperature above the ice?
D. Does it include land-locked lakes? And if so does the water surface area depend on the resolution of the recording system?

Richard Burkel
Reply to  RickWill
May 4, 2021 8:43 am

Hooray!

Bellman
Reply to  RoHa
May 4, 2021 4:53 am

Currently it ended three months after the new pause began.

davidmhoffer
May 3, 2021 10:43 pm

Error bars? Do mine eyes deceive me? The first question I ever asked (which got me banned on SKS or RealClimate or one of those) was “where are the error bars?” That was easily 10+ years ago and this is the first time I’ve seen them freely displayed!

TheFinalNail
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 4, 2021 4:17 am

The reason Lord M was able to show the HadCrut4 error bars is because HadCrut4 publishes these alongside their monthly updates. They have done so for years.

fred250
May 3, 2021 10:50 pm

I love the treads by LCM.

They bring all climate denial of the rabid and desperate AGW climate trolls to the surface. 🙂

Scissor
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 4:37 am

It’s the new critical climate theory being taught in schools. The CO2 molecule is assumed to suppress all others.

RickWill
May 3, 2021 11:06 pm

A pause in what?

The only region of the globe where the temperature has been reliably monitored for the past 40 years and not subject to data fiddles is the Nino34 region; reliable monitored by moored buoys and interpolated with satellite measurements. The temperature trend is slight down due to the existence of the current La Nina phase.

Temp_Nino34.png
RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
May 3, 2021 11:18 pm

Ocean warm pools cannot exceed 30C for very long. Convective cloudburst occurs followed by moist air convergence from cooler zones. They regulate around 30C.

Ocean surface temperature falls off a cliff above 29C. Only land-locked water surface gets above 32C for any sustained period as the land interferes with cyclic cloudburst.

Warm pools expand and contract as well as move around but three widely distanced oceans regulate to the same maximum temperature. Nothing CO2 can do will change that.

Charts_SST.png
Last edited 2 months ago by RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
May 4, 2021 1:16 am

That graph occurs in many different geoscience datasets.

RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
May 3, 2021 11:24 pm

Albedo trumps absorption. Water is a cooling agent in the atmosphere. All that high level ice over tropical oceans buzzing away releasing OLR from about 255K and reflecting massive amounts of sunlight.

During the cloudburst cycle up to 90% of ToA insolation gets reflected straight back out. Then during the CAPE formation stage all the water vapour above freezing level solidifies to form reflective cloud. It is a near perfect temperature regulator.

Only those with religion believe in the “Greenhouse Effect”. It is unphysical nonsense.

Charts_July.png
SAMURAI
May 3, 2021 11:44 pm

6 years with no warming trend is indeed good news especially considering this current La Niña cycle was a mild one.

Some ENSO models predict a new La Niña cycle will develop by the end of this year, which will significantly extend the zero-warming trend duration.

The next major climate events to watch are when the PDO and AMO reenter their respective 30+ year ocean cool cycles, which will dramatically connect the previous 1996~2015 flat-trend period to create a 30+ year zero-warming trend, which will officially disconfirm the absurd CAGW scam for good.

Obviously, the cool PDO and AMO cycles will be bad news for all life on earth because these will likely cause: lower precipitation, more wildfires, shorter growing seasons, droughts, higher food prices, colder winters, more crop-frost losses, less arable land in Northern latitudes, more tornadoes, more hailstorms, blackouts and brownouts, etc…

Leftists preferring colder global temperatures just shows their complete ignorance of science.

fred250
Reply to  SAMURAI
May 3, 2021 11:54 pm

Basically, the effect of the large El Nino/Big Blob event has dissipated.

Back to the same temps as before that event.

Unfortunately, the prospect is further cooling

The only reason to wish for further cooling is to watch the antics of the AGW stall-warts…

…. and to hopefully bring an end to the anti-science of the anti-CO2 malarkey/travesty/SCAM/HOAX agenda.

Eric Harpham
Reply to  SAMURAI
May 4, 2021 1:20 am

If you google “Professor Valentina Zharkova: “We entered the ‘modern’ Grand Solar Minimum June 8th 2020” That plus the negative AMO and PDO cycles will be bad for all humanity.

We are in for a rough 35 years and if there is any truth in the warmistas claims about CO2 warming the earth we will need all the CO2 we can get.

rah
Reply to  Eric Harpham
May 4, 2021 11:34 am

Really? There apparently is no specific scientific definition for a “Grand Solar Minimum”. Math and numbers are the language of science but there are no specific numbers for any of the metrics which absolutely defines the parameters of when a “Grand Solar Minimum has begun or ended. I asked Sven here and his answer was “You’ll know it when your in one”.

SAMURAI
Reply to  Eric Harpham
May 5, 2021 3:10 am

Eric-san:

We’ll see if we’re actually in Grand Solar Minimum event this solar cycle and what effect it may have on global cooling.

There are many supporters of the Svensmark Effect hypothesis, and it will be interesting to see real first-hand evidence to its actual cooling effect.

Roger Knights
Reply to  SAMURAI
May 4, 2021 7:53 am

“The next major climate events to watch are when the PDO and AMO reenter their respective 30+ year ocean cool cycles, which will dramatically connect the previous 1996~2015 flat-trend period to create a 30+ year zero-warming trend, which will officially disconfirm the absurd CAGW scam for good.”

HeyGreta, you can “turn that down upside down!”

Schrodinger's Cat
Reply to  SAMURAI
May 4, 2021 11:05 am

I am aware of several papers that show that CO2 IR absorbance bands are saturated. The greenhouse gases show the most powerful absorbance when at low concentrations but as the concentration rises the effect tails off. We are now at the point where large increases in CO2 will have only a small effect. It is also clear that water vapour is by far the dominant GHG. It shares some of the wavelengths with the other absorbing gases and where that happens, the others have a greatly reduced effect.

This is not really surprising. We have always known that our planet has a very stable climate and one that is benign to the extent that it is in the Goldilocks category, not too cold and not too hot. We have the GH effect to thank for it not being too cold and as I have just explained, the effect tails off at the current concentrations, ensuring that it does not get too hot. Given that CO2 concentrations were frequently at several thousand ppm in the last few hundred million years, co2 induced warming would have had ample opportunity to kill off the evolution of life on our planet. The fact that our extinction did not happen is proof that the greenhouse effect is limited and benign and good reason for not believing those who claim otherwise.

Happer and Wijngaarden have dealt with the saturation. There is also a recent post at NTZ discussing a paper by Schildknecht.

Hokey Schtick
May 3, 2021 11:51 pm

Up! Down! We’re doomed! Doomed! The apocalypse of slightly more pleasant weather.

Steve Case
May 4, 2021 1:21 am

This is much like watching your stock market purchase go up and down. The only difference is you can’t sell when a desirable value is reached.

I’m sure our good friends at Skeptical Science will be dusting off their “Escalator” animated GIF and I’ll get a few dislikes for bringing it up.

Long term, since 1850 average world temperatures seem to be up about a degree. That’s all it is over 170 years and counting.

And while I’m pointing things out, averages can be misleading. Dixie Lee Ray’s famous quote seems to be in order:

“Beware of averages. The average person has one breast and one testicle.”

But what’s really going on, is left-wing politicians have succeeded wildly in selling the notion that a warmer greener world constitutes a “Climate Crisis” and we are all being jerked around by an obvious naked power grab for world domination because of it.

Another quote that can’t be repeated too often:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – – H. L. Mencken

saveenergy
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2021 2:09 am

“Beware of averages. The average person has one breast and one testicle.”

No Steve, The average person is a khaki hermaphrodite !

&
“you know how stupid ‘The average person’ is, – 50% are stupider than that ”
George Carlin

Last edited 2 months ago by saveenergy
John Endicott
Reply to  saveenergy
May 4, 2021 3:33 am

Gotta love Carlin. He’s was definitely not among that 50%.

Scissor
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2021 4:31 am

The average number of testicles is definitely falling.

Steve Case
Reply to  Scissor
May 4, 2021 5:49 am

Good one.

RickWill
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2021 6:14 am

Long term, since 1850 average world temperatures seem to be up about a degree. That’s all it is over 170 years and counting.

This is such a silly statement. WHO was out measuring anything like “average world temperature” in 1850. Think about what you write man. This is tripe.

You can pick locations that had a respectable readings back then – not many. Pick one near you and see how it is tracking. If you live in a heavily populated region then look for a more remote weather station.

This one is about 200km from me at near 37N:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=085096&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
One of the longest records in a remote area of the Southern Hemisphere. I doubt the first few years is accurate but reasonably reliable since 1880. This is one of the loooong records in the Southern Hemisphere – were there any at all in 1850?

Anyone claiming anything about global temperatures in 1850 is short of brain matter. The world extends a long way beyond Europe and North America. The Southern Hemisphere holds 70% more energy than the northern hemisphere. What was the temperature coverage across the Southern Ocean in 1850?

Roger Knights
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2021 7:55 am

Here’s another one:

The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.”
—H.L. Mencken 

Speed
May 4, 2021 2:54 am

To reference a famous mis-quote from the Viet Nam era, we should just declare victory [on global warming] and get out.

Senator George Aiken is famously misquoted as recommending that the United States “declare victory and get out” as a way of ending the war in Vietnam.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/afghanistan-vietnam-redux-bomb-declare-peace-and-leave

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Speed
May 4, 2021 4:40 am

I think it is a bad idea for the U.S. to completely withdraw from Afghanistan.

The U.S. military has a small footprint in Afghanistan, and no American has been k!lled there in over a year because the Afghan army is doing nearly all the fighting.

Pulling out completely opens the door for the Taliban, and the other terrorist groups, and for China.

Biden has a history of turning his back on U.S. allies. He was in charge of withdrawing troops from Iraq which allowed the Islamic Terror Army to run wild, where they k!lled or displaced millions of innocent people before Trump went in and fixed the situation. Note that Trump had the same military available to him as Biden did but the only difference is Trump freed the military to do their job, whereas Biden prevented them from doing their job.

A total withdrawal from Afghanistsn will result in many deaths.

The U.S. should give immigration priority to all Afghans who helped the U.S. in Afghanistan because they will almost certainly be targeted by the Taliban once the U.S. leaves.

The U.S. milittary gets things under control, and then the cowardly Democrats come in and throw it all away. They have been doing it since the Vietnam war. Democrats are unfit to guide U.S. national defense. They screw it up every time.

I feel sorry for the women of Afghanistan and for all the innocent people Biden is abandoning to the wolves. Moral cowardice. Of course, Biden has no morals, so I guess I shouldn’t expect much out of him.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
rah
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2021 6:30 am

What do you expect of people that make heros and martyrs out of druggies and thugs and pay their families millions but wouldn’t give a bit of notice to this Marine that was lucky enough to keep his legs when nailed by an IED and so many others that have sacrificed so much.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1389012942830583808/pu/vid/1280×592/xrRwnW91izPARZ9t.mp4?tag=12

Heck they won’t even give parking spaces for Rolling To Remember to do their patriotic ride!

Immediately DOX and vilify any officer that shoots a person of the wrong color even if they are about to stab another person but withholds the name of the one that shot an unarmed veteran at the Capital.

Calls making a big section of Portland a burned out waste land mostly peaceful protests. But calls breaking and entering and trespassing in the Capital by protesters that had no weapons and attempted no arson a riot. Then stops the building of the border wall and starts putting illegals up in hotels while fencing in the capital and calling in the NG to guard them and making them sleep in parking garages.

On and on it goes.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2021 7:05 am

Biden deserves a cold-hard 6×9 foot concrete cell.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 5, 2021 7:21 am

I see where about 17,000 Afghan interpreters who worked with NATO and American troops are requesting visas so they can come to the United States because the Taliban will target them as soon as the U.S. troops leave.

Biden should make a special case for the Afghans. Biden is the one putting them in jeopardy, and he owes it to them to get them to safety.

The U.S. military says they can move these people out expeditiously if given directions to do so. Biden should give that direction.

rah
May 4, 2021 3:18 am

It’s still “worse than we thought”! I suspect you folks across the pond are being pounded everyday with Bull crap like we are? The increase in volume and strident shrillness of climate change doom in our press is beyond any previous level I can remember! It’s like the whole establishment press has morphed into The Guardian!
Sea Level Rise From Antarctic Melt Could Be 30% Higher Than We Thought (msn.com)

Personally I think they are way over the top in their sales effort. It’s like some guy with a booming voice yelling on the radio telling you their furniture store is having a going out of business sale and it all has to go! We sane people just hit the mute button. It all has more than a whiff of desperation to it.

Bill Toland
Reply to  rah
May 4, 2021 4:20 am

I’ve noticed that as well. Virtually the entire British media have become outlets for Extinction Rebellion’s insane views. Their stories have become more and more ridiculous in the run up to COP26. Part of the problem is that over 99% of British journalists have no scientific knowledge at all; they just regurgitate the same old discredited alarmist claptrap without realising how mad it is.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rah
May 4, 2021 4:53 am

Yes, the Human-caused Climate Change Propaganda machine is in high gear.

The problem for all these climate propagadists is the temperatures are not cooperating with the climate narrative, and they can’t effectively manage to portray any severe weather system as being out of the ordinary.

The Climate Propagandists are “The Boy Crying Wolf!”, when there is no wolf. When the wolf doesn’t show up, people start tuning the Boy out. The People have been tuning the Boy out for quite some time now. That’s why the propagandists are desperate. They have done everything the can to scare people and are not making any headway with the Public. All the polls show climate change at the bottom of the priority list, although the latest poll of Democrats show they support the concept overwhelmingly. Not surprising since their boy is pushing the notion. The rest of us are skeptical.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2021 6:21 am

It’s all about the money! The “renewable” folks are frightened that the money tree will fast disappear when warming ceases about 1930. That’s why the 2150 date has been pulled back to 2130. They’d pull back to 2125 if they thought they could get away with it. Massive amounts of money in just a short time is at stake and they aren’t going to cut it off any sooner than they have too.

rah
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 4, 2021 11:24 am

For the so called “scientists” and some in industry it is all about the money.

For the politicians it is all about control and wealth redistribution.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2021 12:40 pm

Yes, the Human-caused Climate Change Propaganda machine is in high gear.

And Yahoo.com news is still suppressing reader comments on all but entertainment and fashion ‘news’ articles.

They tried some opening up on gun control articles, and got hammered by 2A supporters. The articles promptly disappeared. I don’t think it was the reaction they were hoping for, and what pollsters told them they could expect.

B Clarke
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 4, 2021 1:40 pm

I told two friends almost exactly a year ago global warming is a lie. I was the first person they had heard who contradicted the narrative. They were bemused, not quite believing what I said, today I was there at thier place ,one said every one is convinced global warming is not happening, I then gave reasons why its not happening and some pointers, I’m not sure pointers is a good way eg look up dalton minimum, check out solar minimums, look at uahv6 , I think short term memory and life get in the way. But when I gave reasons there were no interruptions, so I do think the message is getting out there be it ever so slowly.

pochas94
May 4, 2021 4:02 am

I wonder what we’d find if we used mid Ice Age as a starting point. Cherry picking your data range is a leading source of political chicanery. Over time regression to the mean removes all arguments. Convenient selection of the data range is the number one way of generating night terrors in the ignorant, with consequent mega cash flows out of the taxpayer’s pockets, which causes cherry picking of an entirely different sort. What is needed is a valid model, and there is none. A valid model would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  pochas94
May 5, 2021 7:37 am

“political chicanery”

There’s a lot of that going on! 🙂

Petit_Barde
May 4, 2021 4:04 am

That’s awful news for the already endangered AGW clown show.

It’s time to create the warmunistas lives matter movement.

May 4, 2021 4:22 am

Just wondering if 6 years is a sufficient time scale for this kind of analysis. Note in this linked document that long term warming trends are made with decadal trends that appear to be random but with a bias for warming.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/01/11/global-warming-dec2020/

Bellman
May 4, 2021 4:31 am

In other looking back to find the earliest date that reaches a predetermined outcome news:

UAH has been warming at a rate equivalent to over 4°C / century since August 2010, an accelerated warming period of 10 years and 9 months.

For the last 18 years and 8 months, the length of the “Great Pause”, we have been warming at a rate equivalent to 1.86°C / century.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 4:49 am

Climate alarmists are becoming increasingly strident and desperate in their attacks on the new pause. As bomber crews said during the war, when the flak becomes heavy you know that you are over the target.

fred250
Reply to  Bill Toland
May 4, 2021 5:08 am

Their UTTER DESPERATION at this current cooling trend is hilarious.

The more they DENY, the funnier and more idiotic they look.

As I said above…. These LCM posts are great, because they bring out all the DUMBEST and most rancidly brain-washed CLIMATE DENIERS like bin-liner, bellhop, rusty nail, even the utter stupidity of Loy-dodo and izzy-dumb.

All in the same cult-driven boat, all sinking without a paddle.

And all TOO DUMB to stop. !

Last edited 2 months ago by fred250
Bellman
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 5:37 am

Sorry, is this a pause or a cooling trend?

Are you denying the trends I mentioned above are real, or are you pointing out I cherry-picked the start dates to show how it’s possible to get contradictory trends over short periods?

Hint – if you are going to accuse others of being desperate it might be a good idea to avoid using too many bold all caps words.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 6:12 am

Cooling trend recently, little child.

Haven’t you looked at the data ?

El Nino warming now dissipated.

GET OVER IT. and except reality

Your desperate slithering is highly amusing. !

A desperate plea for attention ???

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 6:43 am

Yes I have looked at the data, that’s how I’m able to predict when the pause started, and when accelerated warming started, or any other meaningless trend you want.

So, when do you want the cooling trend to start?

Start at the end of 2015, a few months after the pause and close to the big El Niño, you can be getting a cooling trend equivalent to -1.9°C / century.

Start just after the El Niño and you get get a positive trend again, start at the beginning of 2018, just before the last La Niña and the trend is over 5°C / century.

Start at the beginning of 2019 and temperatures are falling at the same rate as they were rising when you start at 2018, and after that you can get cooling at rates of over 30°C / century.

So which of these do you think best represents your “Cooling trend recently, little child.”?

Bellman
Reply to  Bill Toland
May 4, 2021 5:32 am

A can’t speak for climate alarmists, but personally I was just as strident in my attacks on this statistical nonsense when it started as I am today.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 6:13 am

Just as ignorant as always as well.

Pause is a pause.. get over it

ITS ONLY NATURAL

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 5:06 am

Only a moronic idiot extents the period outside the data length

But that is the bellhop for you..
..
Use those El Ninos.. you KNOW its all the only warming there is.

NO EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CAUSATION

—–

Did you know the current temperature is below 70% of the months this century.

Or are you still in complete DENIAL ?

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 5:40 am

You keep saying that but never explain how I’ve extended the period outside the data length. If you mean I shouldn’t have referred to the trend in terms of an equivalent per century figure, you do realize that Lord Monckton does the same, and so you are calling him a “moronic idiot”. I’d be careful about doing that knowing how litigious he is.

fred250
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 6:15 am

ROFLMAO

duck and weave.. little bellhop.

Use those El Ninos.. you KNOW its the only warming there is

NO EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CAUSATION

Did you know the current temperature is below 70% of the months this century.

Or are you still in complete DENIAL ?

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
May 4, 2021 6:55 am

The question was about what you meant when you said “Only a moronic idiot extents the period outside the data length”. You haven’t addressed that, but accuse me of ducking and weaving.

Did you know the current temperature is below 70% of the months this century.”

Really? No, I had no idea, maybe you should have mentioned a few more times.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 7:07 am

Horrors!!

How will you survive?

Richard Page
Reply to  Bellman
May 4, 2021 2:47 pm

What you say may be true BUT only if the warming continues for the rest of the century. Temperature is funny about that, y’know; it can go up, stay the same, or it can drop just as easily. I wouldn’t care to be the one betting his reputation on it warming for the next 100 years.

Sara
May 4, 2021 4:43 am

I can only with the best for that gabfest in the Autumn: bitter cold winds off the Atlantic, heavy storm surges coupled with blizzardish precipitation, frozen wind turbines not putting out power on the grid, the roe deer wandering through the streets of Glasgow, looking for friendly faces, snow up to the bottom of window frames….

What? I can cream, can’t I? 🙂

William Holder
May 4, 2021 5:07 am

Off topic. Looking for someone with the CliffsNotes. There have been ongoing efforts to examine newly obtained ice cores (within the last decade). Does any new data support older ice core research that confirms various periods over the last 10,000 years were just as warm or warmer than we are today? Thank you.

Graemethecat
Reply to  William Holder
May 4, 2021 6:36 am

Look up “Holocene treelines”. This link came up as the first result from Google:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589499921233

Carlo, Monte
May 4, 2021 6:27 am

I still don’t see a hockey stick.

Richard Page
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 4, 2021 2:49 pm

Go to a hockey game? Just sayin’.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Richard Page
May 4, 2021 3:45 pm

They still have hockey games?

May 4, 2021 6:46 am

So April, 2021, was no warmer than temperature anomalies in 1980.

And in 1981 James Hansen wrote how excited he was that the 1980 temperatures were almost as warm as 1940.

Kenneth Richard

Gordon A. Dressler
May 4, 2021 7:41 am

You mean to tell me that the Biden administration failed to issue an Executive Order ending the “New Pause” in global mean lower-troposphere anomaly trending?

How dare they fail to act!

Don’t they realize they are in danger of making the “existential threat of climate change” the greatest joke of the century? 

M Courtney
May 4, 2021 8:05 am

There’s no point reading thermometers now and trending the results.
The thermometers will be re-read in the future and adjusted accordingly.
That’s what happens with the 1930s.

Richard Burkel
May 4, 2021 8:20 am

It sure would be nice to see some error bars on these graphs.

Richard Burkel
Reply to  Richard Burkel
May 4, 2021 11:27 am

I didn’t read far enough to see 2nd graph. WITH ERROR BOUNDARIES! Thank you Lord.

Bruce Cobb
May 4, 2021 8:21 am

See? Told ya. Step 1 in the Warmunists arsenal is to “Deny the Pause”. How long before the “dog-ate-my-global-warming excuses start?

Steve Z
May 4, 2021 9:16 am

The HadCRUT on the graph above ends in January 2021, but the UAH data through March shows further declines since January 2021, and April has been unusually cold in the USA and Europe.

We’re probably looking at cyclical fluctuations around a constant mean, with peaks in early 2016 and early 2020, and troughs in early 2018 and (so far) 2021.

May 4, 2021 9:57 am

Hi Christopher,

I’ve been idly perusing recent articles here whilst I await Willis’s new post, and then I stumbled upon this one.

I instantly raced over to Wood for Trees, and came up with this graph. How do you explain the differences from your own?

WfT-BEST.png
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jim Hunt
May 4, 2021 10:25 am

Clearly, you do not understand what a Pause is, how it is generated, or what it means. It is not a trend, nor does it claim to be one. At this point, it is just a Baby Pause, and only of interest because of the prospect that it very likely will lengthen. Just how long it will get to be is anyone’s guess. But suffice it to say, the longer it gets, the more nervous the Alarmists will get. I think that a good break point would be a length of 20 years. Then, the Alarmists will really have their knickers in a twist, which will be fun.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 4, 2021 3:58 pm

The real point is that CO2 IS NOT a control knob for temperature. Ruining economies in search of ways to reduce CO2 in order to prevent CAGW is a waste of time and money.

There are other things involved than just CO2 and we have wasted 30+ years trying to prove that CO2 is the only culprit.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Jim Hunt
May 4, 2021 11:49 am

The graph you have shown is for a period longer than 6 years. Didn’t you read the original article?

Reply to  Bill Toland
May 4, 2021 12:34 pm

Bill – I read the original article. Did you?

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

Bruce – The HadCRUT4 graph above includes a trend line. Can you see it?

Reply to  Jim Hunt
May 4, 2021 1:15 pm

Jim Hunt – once again you don’t understand the meaning of the word BANNED – you used another email and url to get around moderation. You even gloat about it.

“N.B. I am delighted to discover that my comment “Awaiting for approval” earlier today has now somehow slipped past Anthony’s eagle eyed mods and emerged into the cold light of day at WUWT!”

You and “blowtorch Reggie” were in cahoots over that at the Arctic discussion sewer known as The Great White Con and I had the police show up at his door due to his continued harassments and threats. You egged him on by allowing his insane comments about me at your website.

I don’t know how I can say this any clearer: Get the hell off my website and stay off. In Brit parlance: BUGGER OFF!

Also, for the record, your Woodfortrees comparison is irrelevant – different time period. It just goes to show that you are either ignorant, trolling, or both. Either way, I don’t care.

Any further comments from you will be deleted.

Last edited 2 months ago by Anthony Watts
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jim Hunt
May 4, 2021 1:17 pm

So? He merely uses the HadCRUT4 graph to show the Pause. No claim about a trend is made, because that isn’t what the Pause is about. With the previous Pause, the Alarmists eventually became more and more desperate as the Pause grew longer and longer, as it threatened the CO2 control knob ideology.

Anon
May 4, 2021 10:09 am

Thanks for this Christopher,

These updates are valuable in pointing out that the temperature is not following carbon dioxide in the short term, but more importantly they illustrate the inanity of this kind of “science”, if you want to call it that, by the comments you elicit.

It reminds me of another post I read about vaccinations in Chile.

An initial commenter asserted that the national vaccination campaign was effective because the number of active cases had fallen by 10% over the last week and that the crisis was abating.

Then a second commenter objected, adding: that it you look at the last two days, active cases are up by 8.5% proving the ineffective nature of the vaccines and that the crisis was getting worse.

The first commenter asserted that the second commenters observations were invalid, because you needed at least a week to make that kind of determination.

Then a third commenter jumped in (using the “at least” opening) and stated that if you looked at the figures from November 2020 (~8000) and compared them to the current numbers (~40,000), active cases have increased by 500% !

I can’t even remember what the first commenter objected to about that… but you get my point and it is analogous to what is going on with climate change.

—–

I think your post really zeros on one of the greatest fissures in the whole CAGW movement, that of the “fixed time frame”. And shows that the claims are on “very thin ice”, being completely dependent on the time frame selected. Hence, the objections to your post… and the need for CAGW proponents to “flatten out” Eras like the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, etc… (lol)

Keep stirring the pot !!! …and with luck this pause will go on long enough to throw another spanner in the works and force another binge of temperature record adjustments. (lol)

Last edited 2 months ago by Anon
chris
May 4, 2021 11:50 am

This is (more) cherry-picking.
(a) month-to-month changes in rate of increase are pretty meaningless when assessing climate change. Also, a reason this graph in in a blog post on a denier website, rather than, say, on FoxNews, et al. is that the Man On The Street does not understand 2nd derivatives.
(b) The starting date of the graph is the reddest of the cherries picked in this post. It is basically the day after years of dramatic increases (measured year-to-year, rather than month-to-month.

such bald exploitation of cognitive biases and population innumeracy, it seems to me, is detrimental to the author’s motive to demonstrate – yet again and again invalidly – “empirically” (yes, those are “scare quote” :-)) that Global Warming is going away.

suggest the author stick with sun spots, coronal mass ejections, and other red herrings that are harder to see through.

cheers!

B Clarke
Reply to  chris
May 4, 2021 2:02 pm

The reason this article is not on msm is because the science is settled, but you knew that right ,any opposing view is censored .the starting date of the graph shows a cooling trend within a larger data set ,we have data sets in temperature readings to see if there are any changes, thats the point right, seems to me you just don’t like the fact that warming is not linear, temperature is not following co2 rises , sorry if that bursts your AGW bubble , your tone is desperate your writing is patronizing , overall a pretty pore attempt at dissuading anyone who reads your post,

Steve Tillinghast
Reply to  B Clarke
May 4, 2021 3:20 pm

What is MSM? I see that a lot but I’m not sure what it is?
Edit – Never mind, I figured it out. Main stream media. So you only believe Fox news? Or maybe only Q?

Last edited 2 months ago by Steve Tillinghast
B Clarke
Reply to  Steve Tillinghast
May 4, 2021 4:10 pm

Not really a intelligent, comprehensive reply is it,

Steve Tillinghast
Reply to  B Clarke
May 5, 2021 11:07 am

Perhaps. But then it’s pretty much par for the course on this denialist site.

B Clarke
Reply to  Steve Tillinghast
May 5, 2021 11:10 am

There no perhaps about it ,,care to explain what a denialist is.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Steve Tillinghast
May 8, 2021 1:12 pm

Mr Tillinghurst should mind his language. The word “denialist” is unacceptable and, in countries with hate-speech laws (soon to be joined by the United Wokes of America), it is prosecutable. Must try harder. Perhaps think of some scientific arguments in support of the Party Line.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steve Tillinghast
May 4, 2021 9:39 pm

Another resident of Wokeastan shows itself.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  chris
May 8, 2021 1:14 pm

“Chris” appears terrified by the notion that global warming is not happening as fast as had originally been predicted by the profiteers of doom. Well, he had better get used to it. This new Pause may lengthen quite a bit more.

ren
May 4, 2021 12:55 pm

Due to the strong south polar vortex, it is unlikely that the temperature of the Peruvian Current will increase.comment image
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/pole10_sh.gif

Richard Page
Reply to  ren
May 4, 2021 2:52 pm

Given the recent conditions, is this good news for Peruvian anchovy fishing?

ren
Reply to  Richard Page
May 4, 2021 11:49 pm

The anchovies are certainly happy.comment image

May 4, 2021 5:26 pm

The global temperature is the lowest it has been in 6+ years

Bartemis
May 5, 2021 1:10 pm

Rate of change of CO2 still tracking temp anomaly.

offset-0.17.png
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bartemis
May 6, 2021 5:47 am

This is a time series is it not? Have you detrended each to see if the changing variables track each other? In essence do a first derivative to evaluate how well they track! I think you’ll find that either the changes are not coherent, or more likely that a rise in CO2 consistently follows a rise in temperature.

Bartemis
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 6, 2021 8:27 pm

Of course CO2 lags. Because this is a plot of the rate of change of CO2 and temperature anomaly. That means CO2 is lagging temperature by 90 deg of phase. Which indicates that temperature is the cause, and CO2 is the effect.

Last edited 2 months ago by Bartemis
Weekly_rise
May 5, 2021 3:47 pm

Mr. Monckton why is your pause sandwiched between warmings?

comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by Weekly_rise
Graemethecat
Reply to  Weekly_rise
May 7, 2021 7:08 am

Looks terribly like a pause to me.

Monckton of Brenchley