By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The effect of the small la Niña southern oscillation is waning. Nevertheless, the New Pause has lengthened from 6 years to 6 years 2 months in the UAH data:
HadCRUT4, after a little prodding, has updated its monthly dataset with three months of new data, taking us up to March 2021. The New Pause in the HadCRUT4 data has lengthened to 7 years 1 month:
How, then, have the real-world data behaved in comparison to the models’ predictions reported by IPCC (1990)? Here is IPCC’s prediction:
Since IPCC’s prediction of 1.8 C° anthropogenic warming is compared with preindustrial temperature, one must deduct the HadCRUT4 0.54 C° warming from 1850 to April 1991. IPCC’s prediction, then, amounted to 1.26 C° by 2030. UAH, however, shows only 0.46 C° in 30 years, equivalent to about 0.61 C° by 2030, of which 70%, or only 0.43 C°, is anthropogenic (Wu et al. 2019).
Therefore, IPCC’s prediction in 1990, on which the global-warming scare – justifiably described by Professor Lindzen in an excellent recent lecture as “absurd” – was based, has turned out to be a near-threefold exaggeration compared with sober reality.
Here is why. Today’s global mean surface temperature is 288.6 K, comprising 255.2 K emission temperature and a 33.4 K greenhouse effect. The 33.4 K comprises 7.2 K direct warming by, or reference sensitivity to, natural (6.2 K) and anthropogenic (1 K) greenhouse gases, and 26.2 K feedback response. Of this 26.2 K, 25.5 K is feedback response to emission temperature and 0.7 K to direct warming by greenhouse gases. Of this 0.7 K, 0.6 K is feedback response to naturally-occurring and 0.1 K to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Today’s system-gain factor, the ratio of equilibrium temperature after feedback response to reference temperature before it, is thus 288.6 / (255.2 + 7.2), or 1.1. Reference sensitivity to doubled CO2 is the product of the 3.52 W m–2 doubled-CO2 forcing (Zelinka et al. 2020) and the Planck parameter 0.3 K W–1 m2: i.e., 1.05 K. Equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2, the product of 1.05 K and the system-gain factor 1.1, is thus about 1.15 K – about the same as the anthropogenic global warming we may expect in the whole of the 21st century.
Consequently, the 3.9 K mean midrange prediction in the latest-generation (CMIP6) models (Zelinka et al. 2020) is a more-than-threefold overstatement, which arises because climate scientists imagine there is no feedback response to emission temperature. Their system-gain factor 26.2 / 6.2, or 4.2, exceeds the real-world 1.1 almost fourfold.
Come on, guys! When are you going to notice that the Sun is shining? It is the Sun that is responsible for very nearly all feedback response in today’s climate. Reference and equilibrium sensitivities are about the same, and one can neglect feedback response altogether in derivation of equilibrium sensitivities without significant error. Reference sensitivities are all you need. And that ends the climate emergency.
My analysis shows an approximately 6000 year decline.
And a very significant decline it is.
Almost an order of magnitude greater then the small warming over the last 150 years.
Which warming has so far been less than the natural cycles ~1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 years ago. The trend from the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum c. 5.2 Ka is disturbingly down.
Actualy, “pauses” seem to be the rule, and warming the exceptions.
As you say, we are in a global cooling phase, with some “pauses” (1940s, 1990s,…) when the climate stops cooling.
The historical “data” of any more than 50 years ago is really pretty suspect for any accuracy. Too many large areas empty of measurement, too many weather statins moved, no consistent or wide spread ocean readings (let alone deep readings). Laughable proxy readings like Mann’s tree rings. It’s all garbage pseudo science done on behalf of those who seek manufactured information to rule with.
Five year, two month downtrend since February 2016 intact.
Arctic sea ice extent yesterday was still above the 2011-20 average.
Antarctic sea ice was above the 1981-2010 average and median.
Good to know. But as the emergency was set about in order to transfer wealth and influence politics, I espect to hear more of it.
Global Socialism will, sadly, never go away! It’s ALL about wealth transfer, just as long as some of it ends up in the bank accounts of the rich & famous, who never jet-set around the world of course, & immense political power in their hands!
An observation made several times during the last pause. Rather than relook those old posts and citations up, am just going from memory. The original ‘pause/model falsification’ interval was proposed by a paper in JAMS about 2008 and was about 12 years when the pause was about 8 years old, if I recall correctly. As 12 years approached, Santer and gang hurridly published a paper arguing nope 12 years wrong, at least 18 years right. The goalposts got moved. The pause lasted about 14 years, killed by the 2015 El Nino. Santer ‘saved the day’ (sarc).
Here, we are only half way to the original goalpost. Got a ways to go before this gets interesting again in the Skeptical/Warmunist debate. Will be after AR6. Think there is better stuff in CMIP6 to concentrate on now.
Since the 2013 UN IPCC CliSciFi AR5 CMIP5 debacle, all of the usual suspects have known that fiddling with aerosol parameterizations is not going to work anymore. Now, for the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6 CMIP6 charade, the usual suspects have been fiddling with cloud parameterizations to get even higher ECSs. Their problem is that not only is the tropical tropospheric hot spot still screwed up, it is now the whole troposphere that is screwed up.
I just wish that there was some way for the UN to be forced to publish the comments they receive on their drafts. In the early years, I was responsible for ensuring comments on our Federal environmental documents received responses and that comments and responses were published.
Dave, I agree. The more they tune, the worse the model/observed discrepancy becomes. Lots of hints now in CMIP6.
One would think that by now IPCC would have learned the army‘s first rule of holes. “When in one wanting out, first stop digging.”
I’m lousy at Internet searches. I’m looking for a 1978 (I hope) NOAA paper that said on pg 23 or section 23, that seventeen years of no statistically significant warming would disprove the models. I lost the link and paper. I used to quote it frequently.
Any aid greatly appreciated
RT, you are off by decades. What you originally seek is found in (IIRC) 2008 in JAMS, cited. Or alternatively in 2015.
Thanks!
Thanks again! Do you have a link. There used to be one, and I had it and a copy, but lost both through multiple computer and backup loses.
So, does this mean all the renewables around the world are working?? (sarc!)
Well intermittently.
Do you really need a lot of electricity at 4 in the morning?
refrigerators do- hate to have it stop and everything melt
You do if you’re charging your EV.
Or smelting aluminum.
Depends. If it’s hot and you have A/C? yes. If it’s cold and you have electric heat?yes. If your charging your EVs? yes.
Many offices and factories are open round the clock.
Yes all of the below answers, let’s think the dairy industry, hospitals ,the tube , the question really is why we need a lot of electricity at 4 in the morning.
If governments have thier way “smart meters ” will shut you down in the morning to supply all of the below critical users, your not deemed a critical user,neither am I, is that what you want, ? Are you buying into the lie of smart meters will save you money , I know you are because you will save money because you have no electric, meanwhile your milk goes sour, your not going to work because your car did not charge , and you fell over and broke your leg on the way to the toilet because your smart enough to allow the power company to turn you off, thats smart right, and that’s just a 4 in the morning example.
Intermittently yes.
Well, not so much.
The greatest thing about goal posts is how easy it is to move them.
Twenty years from now, for example:
I guess the big question is what ENSO phase comes next? If we go into another La Niña, it’s going to be pretty hard to maintain any global warming. With a La Nada maybe the pause will continue but another El Niño will probably start another warming trend, depending on the strength and duration. I’ve seen predictions for all three. Other than predicting the global temperatures, predicting La Niña/ El Niño is next to impossible. Ask the Aussies http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean&pacific=Outlook
Would take another Super El Nino to reverse the flat to down trend. The interval between the last two was 18 years.
According to NOAA theres a 50/55% chance of la nina autumn/winter 2021/2022
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
I’m sorry, I just have to comment on this one. 50%? Why don’t we forecast by throwing a coin? Talk about wishy washy! Why don’t they just say, “We don’t know know, and don’t have a clue.”.
A 50% chance is greater than a 10% chance and less than a 90% chance.
I don’t think we’re going to see much in the way of an El Nino for some time. It looks as though we’ll be in for a few moderate La Nina’s over the next few years though. Probably enough to get step changes down to lower temperatures but not right into a cold phase decline just yet. Time will tell.
“of which 70%, or only 0.43 C°, is anthropogenic (Wu et al. 2019)”
Correcting errors of fact in a Monckton screed is a Sisyphean task. But Wu et al said nothing like that. They analysed a specific period 1880-2017, and partitioned the variability (not trend). 70% went with GHGs, 30% went with oscillations (AMV, PDV). But all of the trend went with the GHG component. The oscillations, as they do, went nowhere. Here is their diagram showing the partition (dotted lines).
The authors’ first mistake was using the pack of lies that is HadCRUT.
If it’s a pack of lies, why does Lord Monckton keep referencing it?
Because his whole approach is to accept at face value the lies of IPeCaC CACA cultists and conspirators, and show that even then their results are insupportable by any process approaching the scientific method.
The good Lord Christopher is a master of the Socratic method as well as the scientific method. Beat your opponent with his own fallacies and ignorance.
I can almost hear him say; “OK then, let’s use your numbers” and then proceeds to destroy their argument using their own “evidence”.
But he’s not accepting “at face value” the claims of the IPCC or whatever, if he’s inaccurately quoting one paper, which helps his case.
He’s not inaccurately quoting ,read the paper and if you want the short version read DKs post below.
I’ll withdraw “inaccurately” for now, as I haven’t looked at the paper in depth, doubt I’m in a position to accurately judge the different interpretations here. But even accepting arguendo that the paper is saying what Monckton claims, my point stands. This is selective use of “the enemies” papers, not “to accept at face value the lies of IPeCaC CACA cultists and conspirators”.
Even if you assume the paper is claiming that 30% of the rise in global temperatures since 1880 was caused by Atlantic and Pacific variability, there would still be no justification for Monckton using the 70% as as a constant fudge factor. By definition these are variable and will have different effects at different times.
You are so dumb…I can’t believe you wrote that…lol
If the enemies own data shows that their claims are just junk, then that is twice as powerful as proving the same with your own data.
If the Pause arises even from the perverted and downwards-“adjusted” HadCRUT series, then it unarguably real.
It’s unarguably “real” if you define it as Monckton does. The question isn’t is it real, it’s is it meaningful.
The 70% was Lord M’s assertion, and he based it on his misreading of Wu et al. If you reject Wu, he has nothing. (If you accept it, likewise).
No matter what Monckton asserts that a paper says, that still doesn’t eliminate the current warming pause. Since CO2 always back radiates and there is always ever more CO2 in the atmosphere over time to do exactly that, the fact that there is ever a pause in global average temperatures at all is not explainable.
It’s a global average after all and should always rise according to theory and modeling if CO2 is the control knob. The heat is missing. It’s been missing a few times now over many years in the industrial age. You can’t explain that and you don’t even try.
The author also seems to be relying on volcanic aerosols as the main excuse !
Their first mistake was thinking that a global temperature construct has any probity or real-world value at all.
What’s the point of averaging poorly-recorded measures about the prevailing conditions over the 30+ defined but disparate climate regions around the planet?
Just spreadsheet exercises for fitting angels on pinheads.
Not just fitting angels on pinheads, but cooking the books to fit the bogus narrative.
“Their first mistake was thinking that a global temperature construct”
If that is a mistake, then Lord M is the first sinner here. And it was he who quoted Wu et al in his support.
Nick, I don’t care who quotes what by whom when it comes to debates about averaged temps constructs (down to 10ths or 100ths of degrees ffs!).
Stand back from it all and ask yourself –
“given the provenance of all these measurements, how realistic could constructs based on these numbers possibly be?”
OK, then if you consistently reject all global temperature measures, what do you have to say?
A lot of WUWT content goes down the drain. Unless you reject only the parts you don’t like.
Yes Nick, if everyone called bullshit on global temperature constructs, much of the content here would be obsolete.
And everywhere else.
Which would be a really positive development.
But WUWT would have many, many more valuable science topics to post here for lay people (like me) to enjoy, and hopefully understand a little more.
But coming here or any other online discussion forums doesn’t mean I need to discard my instinctive bullshit detector.
Yep! Nick nibbles around the edges but refuses to address the meat. We laymen don’t need in depth statistical analysis to see that the IPCC climate model ensembles are politically motivated warmist junk. Our inherent skepticism of all things emanating from political bodies, learned by experience, and a good dose of common sense applied is enough.
Nick does his best to try and dent Lord Monkton’s credibility, never seeming understand that with people like us, his own went down the drain long ago.
Temperature measures stokes, 99% of discussions on here are about predictions and models , thats the point were old predictions are shown to be false ,thats what goes down the drain =predictions and models.
How do you know the model predictions are false if you don’t accept any real world measures?
I think my response to you showed i do accept real world measures and they are discussed here, but the majority of posts here are about climate models and predictions, models ,predictions are increasingly based on cooling the past,extrapolating 30,to 100 years into the future is impossible ,there is no such thing as a linear temperature rise in climate ,which climate scientists and politicians would have us believe.
Nick, you must by now at this late stage of your career have come to accept that “settled science” climate models are the present-day version of alchemy?
Oh look, Nick admits they make predictions.
Nick,
I accept recorded temperatures overall are going up. I’m not going to bother questioning whether or not the recorded temperatures are fit for purpose (adjustments, quality of weather stations, etc).
I do question how appropriate it is to take a local temperature in Leeds, UK, a local temperature in Mumbai, India, a local temperature in Gdansk, Poland, etc., lump them all together and declare the average global high/low-temperature today is 13.1 C while the 20th Century average was 12.7 C.
I even question how anyone can say without laughing the average daily temperature in the Cairngorms is 3.958 C.
To then add in the other 364/365 days for the rest of the year and declare the average annual temperature is y degrees, and it’s +0.8C hotter than the arbitrary perfect global average temperature is just insane.
A global average temperature is meaningless.
And that’s before we acknowledge the recovery from the LIA and as Scissor rightly points out the 6000-year decline in temperatures to where we are now.
“a local temperature in Mumbai, India, a local temperature in Gdansk, Poland, etc., lump them all together and declare the average global high/low-temperature today is 13.1 C”
Indeed, that would be quite wrong. And scientists don’t do it. AS you suggest, temperatures are too inhomogeneous for that.
But temperature anomalies are much more homogeneous. You calculate an anomaly in Gdansk by subtracting what is normal for G at that point in time. Chances are the anomaly is similar in Riga or Lwiw. A global anomaly average is meaningful.
Possibly meaningful, but that’s pretty doubtful when abused by people like you. It becomes scientific fraud when you try to dupe people who don’t know science well into believing that the anomaly is associated with the same energy retention in Poland (or the Arctic) as it is in India. Or, to put it bluntly, your post above is scientific fraud, which is particularly fraudulent in your case, because we all know that you know it.
Willful daily scientific fraud Nick. Congratulations on what you’ve become.
“subtracting what is normal for G at that point in time”
Is “normal” ideal or can in be improved? For much of the planet, a bit warmer is terrific. Determining what is “normal” seems to be difficult.
thanks for confirming how ignorant one must be to think that averaging temperature Anomaly from unique points around the globe have any meaning. Climate is LOCAL. there is no such thing as Global anything other than Population.
I disagree, Nick.
Setting aside the temperature differences between night and day, an average temperature for a single place on a single day of the year over 100 years may give a meaningful average for that particular day.
Doing the same for the month of April will give an average temperature for the month but it’s not meaningful.
Then doing the same thing for a whole year or decades is meaningless.
The 20th Century global average temperature of 12.7C I gave is from the NOAA website but how can that one temperature have meaning when you look at global anomalies such as these:
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=14;-26;1&l=temperature-anomaly-2m
Sorry, mate, I’m not convinced a global average temperature or anomaly has any meaning.
What is the expanded uncertainty of this number?
Dude, you’re one of those who build this house of cards
If you’re still here trying to prove that being a grammar policeman wannabe means that emissions cause blah blah blah, it was funny that your theory about no one saying there were more Atlantic storms was demolished, two days after you posted that blithering idiocy, by one of the world’s most strident climate liars – Seth Borenstein, aka Goebbelstein.
Here’s his latest offering:
https://apnews.com/article/health-climate-change-whales-science-environment-and-nature-e8478d8d6decf8a6cf4c9037f0c60f2f
…. and yes, it would be an ad hominem, but funny anyway, that someone supporting the “climate change”-induced shrinking whale hypothesis has the surname Worm.
Com’on Nick. Christopher is showing no warming on anomaly datasets – exactly the what you chose to show Anthropo warming with. And you are saying that even with pauses the inexorable rise in CO2 will cause inexorable rise in avg temperature. Now I did note your ‘hedge’: If CO2 IS the control knob!
I’m only hoping there isnt another tireless algorithm under development here to let us have our pauses, but lets you guys keep adjusting some unknown average global temperatures to fulfill the global warming imperative, with no intention of giving a measure of it.
Wu et al, 2019:
[added html link to fig 1a, Wu, et al, 2019, fig 1b is same link,
Bold emphasis added]
I don’t think I understand. These figures and explanation from your link to the original text (Thanks!) seem to resemble MoncKton’s. Just who’s misquoting whom?
Your first bold emphasises that changes (variability) are partitioned.
Your second bold simply says that GMSAT increases linearly with CO2_e (GHG). If you look at Fig 1a and 1b, it shows the whole increase attributed to CO2_e. The Fig shows the scatter contributed by AMV, PDV. But that does not change the trend. It can’t, because the oscillations have no trend.
The third bold confirms that. But Fig 4, which I showed, is even more explicit.
You didn’t answer the specific question stokes
SCHOPENHAUER’S 38 STRATAGEMS, OR 38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT:
#29. If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had bearing on the matter in dispose. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.
👍
every politician knows that trick
The only specific question is
“Just who’s misquoting whom?”
And the answer, as I have made very clear, is that Lord M is misinterpreting Wu et al (he doesn’t actually quote). Wu said that 70% of the variability, not trend, is attributed to GHG, 30% to AMV, PDV. But GHGs, as Fig 4 makes clear, carry 100% of the trend. AMV, PMV are oscillations which have no long term trend.
Haha your shown wrong yet again, the problem you have stokes is your a little to quick to refute someone without reading through what you have writen ,thats just sloppy man.
They say
You say
In what way are the changes from 1880 to 2017 not a ‘trend’?
I’m thinking you’ve sunk below your usual Nit-picking standards, and you had set the bar so very low…
Zig Zag,
Respectfully disagree. These are precisely on standard.
Nit-picking, or Nick-picking?
“In what way are the changes from 1880 to 2017 not a ‘trend’?”
Because some go up and some down. Variability is a mean square measure of changes, trend a cumulative sum.
You can see this in their Table 1 and Table2 of subperiod trends, periods of approx 30 years (but the last is shorter).
For GHG the subtrends are
0.025, 0.051, 0.130, 0.125
For AMV
0.085, -0.065, 0.036, -0.035
AMV variability is a substantial fraction of GHG, but when added to make a whole period trend, it is much less.
This is in no way nitpicking. Lord M quoted just one number from Wu. And it isn’t what he says it is.
Monckton, above:
Stokes, above
Wu (your link)
Wu also defines CO2_e as combined effects of CO2 with other GHGs, as an estimate.
I don’t see how your interpretation of the legend of figure 4, itself intended to be a summary illustrative of the text that I quoted from the conclusion, agrees with Wu or contradicts Monckton.
Forgive me for anticipating, but my intent with the bold emphasis was not to change the meaning of Wu’s conclusions. I do not feel that you’ve shown how Monckton’s citation is wrong.
But both of your posts avoid the point of Monckton’s statement, which was NOT to quote or reiterate the Wu paper, but to state
Since all your replies seem to be based on your interpretation of both the author of this post and the reference, I join in with another commenter (or perhaps your alter ego), and request that you fully refute Monckton’s entire post in a separate posting of your own. That way we can spend our too precious time on civil discussion of something other than trivial misdirection.
Nail on the head DK, stokes was practicing distraction from LMs main point.
B Clarke,
Not me, I’m just bumbling through. A commenter on another recent thread (can’t find it, or would have linked or listed the name) begged that we all quit picking on Nick. Maybe sincere, maybe an alter ego, or a newb like me. I’m taking the suggestion to heart, and am trying to see if there’s anything at all there. So far….
Not being a particularly patient person, and considering the result, I’ve probably spent about enough time on it.
Yes you, stokes is very much like the plants on the guardian website as soon as anyone dares question the AGWagenda your attacked for your opinion ,any daming post like LMs brings old nick out to defend the faith, without fail, he must be constantly on pounce alert.
“I don’t see how your interpretation of the legend of figure 4…”
The key is the content. He shows the observed data going from about from about 0 to 0.8. Then he shows the GHG component, also going from about 0 to 0.8. The AMV and PDV go from 0 to 0. GHG is 100% of the trend.
The arithmetic behind Fig 4 is set out in Eq (3)
GMSAT=0.229×CO2_e + 0.072×AMV + 0.024×PDV (3)
This is a regression fitted result; as he says, the 70% comes from 0.229/(0.229+0.072+0.024)=0.7046
The fit is linear, so you can say
trend(GMSAT)=0.229×trend(CO2_e) + 0.072×trend(AMV) + 0.024×trend(PDV)
But that doesn’t mean trend(CO2_e) is 70% of the trend. In fact, the other trends are (near) zero, so it is 100%
I am trying to ask complete questions for clarification of your views. I still don’t understand your answers. I attempt again:
Monckton, above, cited conclusions in Wu (full quote and link previous post)
Your reproduction of Wu figure 4 contains that very point in the legend.
and
These three seem to contradict
Stokes, above
Then,
Stokes, above
Monckton’s full sentence was
You claim that Wu does not conclude, or incorrectly concludes as stated in the paragraphs that Monckton (presumably) cites, and yourself cite in figure 4. Please justify :
1) Why Monckton does not correctly quote Wu’s conclusion? [Stokes, above “But Wu et al said nothing like that.”]
2) Why both Monckton and Wu, or either, is incorrect?
3) How the cited conclusion, right or wrong, refutes Monckton’s complete, simple, predicate statement regarding UAH temperature increase?
“1) Why Monckton does not correctly quote Wu’s conclusion?”
M says that, given a trend 0.61C from 1991 to 2030, then Wu says only 70% is anthro, so you can reduce the trend accordingly. First, of course, Wu spoke of a specific period, 1901-2017, in calculating the 70%. But more crucially, Wu’s 70% does not relate to trend. It relates to least squares regression fitting. The mix of GHG, AMV, PDV which best fits the data, has 70%GHG. That minimises the square of residuals, or changes/variability. No mention of trend here.
The changes add to a trend. But the 70% related to squares. In fact, as Fig 4 showed, the changes in GHG are one-way, and add to the entire trend. The changes in AMV, PDV cancel and add to almost nothing.
2) Why both Monckton and Wu, or either, is incorrect?
Nothing wrong with Wu.
3) How the cited conclusion, right or wrong,…
Just repetition. You can’t cite Wu to take that 70%.
Monckton does NOT say
But Wu DOES say
Wu does NOT address
but DOES address 1880 to 2017, as above
Wu DOES state above
But Monckton does NOT mention the same trend, only that WU concluded GHGs contribution was 70%, citing Wu
You said:
Then posted an image of one of five places in their document where Wu said precisely what Monckton claimed.
You said of Wu’s calculations
and
and
But Wu mentions the trend in precisely the same context as the 70% GHG and 30% AMV/PMV contribution to the annual mean. And states why they conclude that the negative correlation of AMV/CO2_e and PMV/CO2_e create a 30% contribution to the trend. In figure 2 they label this mean as a trend line, then summarize the figures in fig 4. without the “trend” label
Stokes, above, repeats
Wu, et al. (2019) does NOT mention least squares reguression, but does state that their linear regression is a trend in figure 2 (link above) as if Wu uses the term near interchangeably. Wu states several times that the contribution of GHG at 70% is from their analyses of the temperature trend. Wu contradicts Stokes:
++++
Since silence indicates consent, after several tries, we shall assume that you agree with Monckton’s main point of the sentence:
Since the Wu citation was ancilliary to this primary point, I assume that, even if you are correct (against reason) in your argument, that it is of a trivial difference to the overall conclusion, which Monckton’s begins in the paragraph following the contested sentence,
Monckton above:
Not relying at all upon Wu. (wooden shoe) 😉
Some key words there
“With AMV and PDV defined as the combination of variability over both the Atlantic and Pacific basins after the GHG-related trend is removed“
It makes very clear the distinction between variability and trend, and why they have zero trend (so the other component, GHG, must carry 100% of the trend).
“Wu said precisely what Monckton claimed”
No, you are going by sound alone. That isn’t precision. In fact I described the precise arithmetic above:
GMSAT=0.229×CO2_e + 0.072×AMV + 0.024×PDV (3)
and 0.229 is 70% of (0.229 + 0.072 + 0.024).
But when you take trends
trend(GMSAT)=0.229×trend(CO2_e) + 0.072×trend(AMV) + 0.024×trend(PDV)
then each of the numbers in that arithmetic is multiplied by something, so the first term on the right, which is a trend, is not 70% of the RHS total. It is 100%, because the other trends are 0.
That is the absurdum of the M claim. He says of the 0.61C gain 1991-2030, only 70% is anthro per Wu. But Wu is partitioning between GHG, AMV and PDV, and the latter have no long term trend, as Wu says several times. So you certainly can’t make a general claim that trends can be so apportioned. It is arguable that in 1991-2020 AMV at least rose a bit and may have contributed to the trend in those years. But that requires looking at the time varying behaviour, and it wouldn’t be anything like 30%.
I see that continuing the author list, the paper is by Wu, Hu et al.
I love how you think these hundredths of a degree Celsius have some kind of meaning attached to them.
Mr Stokes is up to his usual tricks: deny, obfuscate, confuse and miselad. Wu et al. (2019) state quite explicitly: “Regression analysis indicates that the observed global mean surface air temperature changes from 1880 to 2017 come 70% from contributions from GHGs, with AMV and PDV contributing a combined 30% with a possible higher contribution from AMV.” Their words, not mine.
“Regression analysis indicates…”
Exactly. They are describing a least squares regression fit. And the 70% refers to a partition of square deviations.
But it doesn’t mean that the oscillations contribute 30% of the trend. It can’t, because they have no long term trend, and in fact Wu et al describe how the trend is removed. In the shorter term, hey can affect trend, but the effect is equally likely to increase or decrease. Again, their Fig 4 sets this out
I’ll just expand on that Fig 4 showing the regression. The partition means that if you add the three dotted curves, you get the red curve. The curves are got by multiplying the corresponding normalised data by the coefficients, which are in that ratio. But obviously, the rising tendency of the red comes entirely from the CO2 dashed curve.
Once again Christopher, you are confusing variation with trend.
Mr Stokes is doing as usual: deny, obfuscate, confuse and miselad. Wu et al. (2019) state quite explicitly: “Regression analysis indicates that the observed global mean surface air temperature changes from 1880 to 2017 come 70% from contributions from GHGs, with AMV and PDV contributing a combined 30% with a possible higher contribution from AMV.” Their words, not mine.
Monckton,
An earnest question: Am I correct, above, in stating that you do not rely on Wu, et al. (2019) as cited for your conclusion? Your mention of it seemed almost parentheitcal to me at that point in discussion, but I was fatigued.
Mr Stokes is up to his usual tricks: deny, obfuscate, confuse and mislead. Wu et al. (2019) state quite explicitly: “Regression analysis indicates that the observed global mean surface air temperature changes from 1880 to 2017 come 70% from contributions from GHGs, with AMV and PDV contributing a combined 30% with a possible higher contribution from AMV.” Their words, not mine.
He is the greatest of obfuscation
Every post after his first.and even that one was designed to belittle the author.
My comment to Nick Stocks is that the emergency even in his version of the climate world is not supportable.
Many skeptics have an unrealistic version of the climate and its changes also.
Why not develop a realistic expectation of the climate in the future and work towards making the world a better place for all based on technologies that are plainly suitable for economic development and reduce emissions to a moderate level while the vast number of errors in our understanding are ironed out.
CCG power stations are an example and actually a substitution of coal with gas from shale etc.
We all know that central UK is a shale province as good as it gets and backing out the combustion of wood chips with such gas would make the world a vastly better place. You disappointingly propel your obvious intellect into chipping at points of trivial importance, make the world better its your responsibility.
We have gone from the Precautionary Principle where disaster is so irreversible and absolute that we must act even before we have any evidence to…
Quibbling over attribution of half a degree K.
If Climate Sceptics were allowed into mainstream media debates I don;t think we would be spending a fortune on various energy boondoggles and pie-in-the-sky computer models.
This whole feeble dispute begs the question,
“Does AGW even matter these days?”
Are there any “mainstream media debates”? I haven’t seen any. Just blind acceptance and reiteration of the “Climate Emergency” claims by the Leftist politicians. The problem is that the people who get their news from brief corporate media reports have no idea that the Demon CO2 myth is challenged by real scientists.
The world is a better place because of affordable energy. Adding stupid windmills and solar to grids is idiocracy at its finest.
He never does.
Yeah, but where are the GHGs? I see only CO2 what happened to water vapour (H2O)? I’m starting to smell the same red herring everywhere! They link to a paper discussing its roll in creating the Pause – trashing it as their* favourite positive feedback gas in the process – for f*%k sake!
*Warmists’
Solomon, S. et al. Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. Science 327, 1219–1223 (2010).
“They link to a paper discussing its roll in…”
It was Lord M who invoked the paper by Wu, Hu et al. But they deal with CO2_e – an amalgam of GHG effects expressed as equivalent mass of CO2. They describe how they calculate this.
Yeah but they don’t include the most important and significant GHG; water vapour is not included:
Clearly, that are not talking the GHG that exists at 25000 ppm; their charts only go to 500 ppm!
It is an oft repeated pattern, here, when an article invokes a scientific paper in support, I point out what the paper really said, and then people launch into a diatribe against said paper. Without realising, apparently, that the original article needed it for support.
Actually you repeatedly ignore what the paper really said as pointed out to you multiple times, particularly by dk_.
I wasn’t trying to support the article or the paper. I’m trying to wade through the polarised weeds to find the truth. And as Lord M is always being a little bit facetious – he is using his oponents arguments against them – I’m never sure what facts he actually agrees with. To that end, is that GHG figure even real or useful in calculating the GHE or its anthropogenic component? Why are both parties ignoring their favourite “Back Radiating” GHG? Might it be because it is a little bit too inconvenient a truth!
This is incredibly accurate and quite bewildering.
Once again, our good friends over at Skeptical Science are getting ready to dust off their Escalator. And they will have a point.
I suppose i will get down votes, but that’s just too bad.
But not a real good one. A 2000 to 2015 slope would be less steep than a 1985 to 2000 slope if shown on their graph. That’s not “cherry picking”, that’s recognizing a break in the curve.
You mean like Trenberth’s “big jumps”? 😉
“IPCC’s prediction, then, amounted to 1.26 C° by 2030.”
“Therefore, IPCC’s prediction in 1990, on which the global-warming scare … was based…”
If the IPCC in 1990 were trying to cause a scare by predicting 1.26°C over 40 years, did they not explicitly state this, rather than claiming they expected around 1°C by 2025, with large areas of uncertainty? If the intention is to exaggerate the predicted warming, why hide the headline figure so well that 5 years ago Lord Monckton thought they “predicted near-linear global warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] C° over the 36 years to 2025”? It just seems odd to hide your real scare in the small print, hoping no-one will notice.
Monckton, 2016 your link (thanks)
and
and
Today
and today
Please show
(1) How the IPCC summary from Monckton’s 2016 does not match, in context, the IPCC(1990) page reference in the linked post? Please do add your correction of Monckton 2016 on his summary of the other several quoted IPCC reports.
(2) How Monckton’s 2016 summary of one IPCC report summary of RSS and UAH, and today’s posting disagree in context?
(3) Where the 2016 Monckton conclusion (excerpted) that major climate models used for Government policy, 2001 to 2015, as unfit for use, was incorrect?
(4) How a statement about model fitness for use has any bearing on today’s post?
(5) How either post by Monckton contradicts or misquotes Lindzen?
(6) How IPCC 1990 is not “a near-threefold exaggeration” of today’s subject post?
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your claims? Please, feel free to clarify. Complete quotes please, since we seem to be having a problem with context.
I really love this guy
Here we go again, IPCC 1990 Scenario A dragged out and misrepresented as their central prediction. It was not. The point of scenarios is to cover a range of possible future forcing trajectories. IPCC (1990) had four scenarios A-D, with ‘A’ the most extreme. We now know that the actual forcing outturn was significantly below Scenario A, somewhere between C and D. In 2010 Scenario A had forcing of approximately 3.5 Watts per square meter, under the B, C, D scenarios, the projected 2011 forcing was nearly 3W/m2. The actual GHG radiative forcing in 2011 was approximately 2.8 W/m2 (His Lordship published a paper in 2015 which used a figure of 1.8 w/m2 for CO2 forcing in 2011)
The associated temperature projections were thus pretty accurate, certainly not ‘three times reality’, and yet his Lordship *always* discards the realistic scenarios and misrepresents Scenario A as ‘The IPCC prediction’ so he can claim the IPCC was inaccurate and alarmist.
But please, don’t take my word for it….
“I had not recalled that IPCC had made its 1 k by 2025 prediction under Scenario A. However, Scenario A was its business-as-usual scenario, and it had incorrectly predicted a far greater rate of forcing, and hence of temperature change, than actually occurred”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/#comment-1431529
In other words, the extreme Scenario A did not come to pass, despite being deemed ‘business as usual’, the predictions associated with forcing reality turned out to be pretty skillful. Can’t have that can we?
(1) How the IPCC summary from Monckton’s 2016 does not match, in context, the IPCC(1990) page reference in the linked post? Please do add your correction of Monckton 2016 on his summary of the other several quoted IPCC reports.
In 2016, claimed that the 1990 IPCC “predicted near-linear global warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] C° over the 36 years to 2025”, today he says the same report predicted 1.26°C by 2030. Unless you think the IPCC thought there would be 0.26°C warming between 2025 and 2030, the two claims do not match. I’m only refering to the oldest IPCC report as that’s the only one Monckton seems to be interested in at the moment.
(2) How Monckton’s 2016 summary of one IPCC report summary of RSS and UAH, and today’s posting disagree in context?
Sorry, I don;t understand the question.
(3) Where the 2016 Monckton conclusion (excerpted) that major climate models used for Government policy, 2001 to 2015, as unfit for use, was incorrect?
I think i went over some of this at the time. First, I don’t think you should be translating everything to trends – the reports’ projections are based on 20 year averages. trends can be very misleading over short terms. Monckton starts his trends in 2001. He ignores all but satellite data, ignoring the data set (HadCRUT) the reports use.
(4) How a statement about model fitness for use has any bearing on today’s post?
I obviously wasn’t clear enough. The only reason to link to the speedometer article was to illustrate that what Monckton claims are the 1990 IPCC predictions do not appear explicitly anywhere in the IPCC report, and only 5 years ago Monckton was saying they showed something different. The 1990 IPCC report specifically says they expect about 1°C warming from current values by 2025, but also make it clear this will not be a steady rise, and that the models and predictions will improve in later reports.
Monckton nowadays ignores any explicit quote in the report, does some creative accounting around a single value to come to the conclusion that the 1°C figure was the IPCC downplaying the actual short term prediction, whilst simultaneously claiming that the IPCC were exaggerating the warming in order to scare people.
None of this really matters, the 1°C figure is still wrong – but it illustrates to me the way Monckton’s mind works. He always has to over-egg every pudding he presents. Always tries to create the worst possible prediction, the slowest possible trend to compare it with.
(5) How either post by Monckton contradicts or misquotes Lindzen?
I made no mention of Lindzen.
(6) How IPCC 1990 is not “a near-threefold exaggeration” of today’s subject post?
“Exaggeration” is an odd word to use. Are you saying they knew how much warming there would be up to 2025 and then multiplied it by 3? It was a prediction they explicitly said may not be that accurate. They gave error terms, as Monckton says in his speedometer post. They said that by 2025 they expected between 0.7 and 1.5°C warming since 1990.
If you use Monckton’s method of using linear trends, and taking his calculations at face value, they predicted the warming rate since 1990 would be 2.8°C / century with error bands between 1.9 and 4.2°C / century. Currently the UAH waring rate since 1990 is 1.4°C / century. This you will see is exactly half what they were predicting, so I’d say at most they were “exaggerating” by two-fold, not nearly three fold.
If you use RSS rather than UAH the trend is 2.4°C / century, whilst using the land based data sets the rate is between 1.8 and 2.1°C / century.
“Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your claims? Please, feel free to clarify.”
I hope I’ve made it clear that my purposein digging up the old speedometer post was not to go over the arguments again, but to point out the problems in what Monckton claims about the 30 year old IPCC report.
As an aside it’s interesting to note that whilst he introduced the global warming speedometer in 2016, insisting that you should start the trend in 2001, and that 15 years was a long enough period to use for a trend, since then he’s barely mentioned it. At the time he averaged the two satellite data sets to give a warming rate of 0.47°C / century. Today, ignoring RSS and only using the slowest warming data set, the rate of warming since 2001 is 1.5°C / century, over 3 times faster than Monckton’s original speedometer. Whilst if you look at the last 15 years it’s 2.8°C / century.
Moral of this is that 15 years is not a long enough period to establish a meaningful trend.
So, no tipping point emergency then?
Bellman,
Thank you for earnestly taking on my shotgun style response. You gave me a lot to think about. You’re right that, in retrospect, the middle four questions were probably malformed or over the top, and I think I can considered them answered with the remaining two or discarded appropriately.
I will work on rephrasing what I think you’ve and Monckton have both said and have you check me. Perhaps he will also contribute. I will try to be brief, but I’ll probably be repetitive.
Monckton calls this a near linear rate equivalent and extrapolates a value for 2016. You and several others say that his is an incorrect statement of a trend in the original prediction, and his 2016 conclusion is therefore incorrect. You quoted him, properly then, for your purpose, in
(Aside: I really was new yesterday to this dispute, which I gather now is long-standing)
When Monckton re-uses his 2016 value in today’s post, you state that this disputed figure invalidates his conclusion.
In particular, the claim that the prediction IPCC 1.26 C° by 2030, was incorrect, and you disagree with his drawing another trend using that figure to compare it to the present.
Apologies for seeming pedantic. Have I missed any significant issues? I was trying to be less verbose but may have missed some point that wasn’t clear to me.
dk_,
thank you for at least considering what I said, it’s a rare thing nowadays. I’m sorry if my responses were a little aggressive, as you rightly surmise I’ve been arguing many of these points with Lord Monckton and others for some time, and it’s fair to say none of the arguments have changed either of our opinions much.
I should go into a little more detail about this 1990 IPCC prediction. (sorry, this will be far to long winded as I’m hopeless at summarizing)
The 1990 IPCC makes a direct statement about future trends ain the introduction to the report. They refer both to warming since pre-industrial (defined I think as 1750), and warming since current times (1990). They predict around 4°C by the end of the century compared to pre-industrial, and 3°C compared with 1990. For the short term, up to 2025, they predict 2°C compared with pre-industrial and 1°C above 1990.
They also say there’s a lot of uncertainty in these models, the warming will not be smooth, and models should have improved in later reports. I think the fact they only give predictions to the nearest degree indicates how approximate these predictions are. The other point is they are suggesting there has been around 1°C warming since pre-industrial times to current times.
A few pages later we have the passage quoted in the head posting, saying global temperatures are estimated to be 1.8°C above pre-industrial values by 2030. This to me suggests the best estimate is for slightly less warming than the headline 2°C figure, and assuming the same assumed difference between pre-industrial and 1990, would mean 0.8°C warming over the next 40 years.
In Monckton’s 2016 speedometer article he uses the headline 1°C warming by 2025 to calculate the predicted trend, but a little later latches on to the 1.8°C figure, and concludes this means more rather than less warming was predicted. He does this by assuming that as there had only been 0.54°C warming up to 1990, the IPCC’s figure must mean they were predicting all of the rest of the warming was going to happen by 2030, i.e. temperatures would have to rise by 1.26°C over the next 40 years to get to the 1.8°C figure.
This assumes that the IPCC knew exactly how much warming had already taken place, based the 1.8°C figure on that base line, yet for some reason never mentioned this in the report. I find this odd when Monkton is also claiming that they were trying to scare people. If they were predicting 1.3° warming over the next 40 years why downplay the headline rate of warming. This figure also doesn’t agree with their graph which shows a slower rate of warming in the short term.
I don’t think this is really that big a deal, the differences aren’t that great, and nobody really cares what a 30 year old IPCC report said. But it annoys me how often Monckton will use, literally made up, figures like this, as if they were exact quotes from the report.
Bellman,
Thanks for your reply. I did get a sense of your frustration, but was not then aware of what was behind it.
I’m going to study it a bit more.
In your previous response, at the end, you wrote
This seems to counter my experience, although through it, you now show me most plainly how you disagree with Monckton’s description today of the problem. I may have it out of context, so straighten me out if I’m off: Is your 2001 your earliest data sample? Can you calculate a trend from earlier, e.g. 1990, to present? These can be yes/no or short answers, I’m not asking you to expend effort here to develop anything, although it you’ve credible reference or previously developed material, I’d appreciate a link.
The 1.5°C / century is the trend since the start of 2001. I only used this as Monckton’s speedometer started at that point.
The trend from 1990 is 1.4°C / century.
The figure for the last 15 years was starting in 2006, though it should say 2.7°C / century. This is not very meaningful except it’s the same length of time Monckton used in his speedometer post, where he said “Fifteen years is long enough to verify the predictions from IPCC’s first three Assessment Reports against real-world temperature change measured by the most sophisticated method available – satellites.”. I feel the huge swings over just 5 years illustrates why 15 years is not long enough to verify predictions.
I should add that all of these are using just the UAH satellite data set, which tends to be the slowest warming of the sets.
Bellman
Thanks for your quick answer and civility. I will have to continue to think about it all. I tend to believe that I understand Monckton’s, but without real critical consideration. You’ve at least given me a different perspective.
I do want to suuest that your (and I think also John Phillips‘) dispute with Monckton on this specific point is unresolvable.
Sincere thanks for making your point, exhaustively, to me. I may pick up again, here or in another thread.
Brilliant to see a well reasoned and civil debate between dk and Bellman. WUWT at its best.
TFN,
I was trying to learn. Totally for my benefit. Thanks goes to Bellman.
Three cheers for _dk.
Monckton,
I appreciate the mention, but I am seriously trying to work this out for my self with two of your regular commenters. I am often flippant, which puts me in my own way. In some ways, trying this is therapy for me, so I confess something of a self-interest.
But your writing is always clear to me, except when I demonstrably goof it up on my end. Working these out with those particular two is actually helping me to suss it out.
It was a good piece. Thanks.
My pause graph:
Start your graph at the coldest period in the last 100 years. When all the facts don’t support your case, just show the ones that do.
That is the full UAH satellite data set quoted by the article. The graph starts when the data starts. A true cherry-pick would be to start it at a specific point, like 2015, or 1998, for instance…
The Pause is measured from now and looks backwards. Not a cherry-pick. Now is special. It’s where we are.
Please remember that satellites are not cheap. They weren’t built on a whim. They were built because people thought there was something worth measuring. And in the 1970s that was a cooling Earth. If things hadn’t been getting to an extreme we wouldn’t have started measuring.
Measurements always start at an interesting point. If you think about it, that’s obvious.
For another example look up the far earlier work of Fahrenheit.
“Now is special. It’s where we are.”
It’s not the “now” that makes it a cherry-pick, it’s the “then”, the point where Monckton claims the pause starts.
And if he always starts in the now, how do you explain his claim that the old pause lasted 224 months? That’s not ending in the now, it’s past tense.
“They were built because people thought there was something worth measuring. And in the 1970s that was a cooling Earth.”
Nonsense. The satellites were not built to measure climate, they’re weather satellites. It was only in the 90s anyone thought of using them to estimate the global climate.
You’re still a little confused. Now is now. And then you count back. When you stop counting back is when the trend becomes significant. Because that is the period where there cannot be claimed to be a pause – from now to then.
Having established the periods where the pause existed you can afterwards refer to those pauses we had before. This is useful for contrasting the temperature trends with he steady CO2 trends.
And no, people didn’t put invent a weather satellite with the ability to measure the temperature of the atmosphere as a fluke – a bit of spare payload. They were interested in that parameter.
Think about why (I gave a clue with the invention of the mercury thermometer).
“You’re still a little confused.”
You’re correct, I find arguing with pause true-believers to be very confusing.
“Now is now. And then you count back. When you stop counting back is when the trend becomes significant.”
See, first point of confusion. What has stopping counting got to do with the significance of the trend? I’m not sure if you mean significant as in statistically significant, or just in the sense of it being important, but either way, stopping counting when you reach the point you are interested in does not equate to significant.
“Having established the periods where the pause existed you can afterwards refer to those pauses we had before.”
Your claim was that there could be no cherry-picking because one end of the pause was fixed. But your past pauses require both ends to be picked. All you are saying about the old pause is that you have looked across all the data and were able to find a single long period where you could get a flat trend. In order to do that you have to choose both the start and the end of that period.
“This is useful for contrasting the temperature trends with he steady CO2 trends.”
How is it useful? If the pause periods are just arbitrary periods where you could find a flat trend, they tell you nothing beyond what looking at the actual long term trends would. So far every pause has actually resulted in an increase in the long term warming rates – focusing on the pause rather than the rise is at best misleading.
If you want to see how the fluctuations compare with the steady rise in CO2, compare the two, not some arbitrary cherry-picked period. For example see my graph below. It’s a couple of months out of date, but I find it hard to see how the recent pause contradicts the idea that CO2 might have an effect on global temperatures.
Congratulations, you scaled to y-axis exactly enough to make the two coincide.
Thanks. Yes I scaled the CO2 levels to best fit the temperature. That’s how it works. The scale is approximately equal to a 1.9°C rise per doubling of CO2.
“And no, people didn’t put invent a weather satellite with the ability to measure the temperature of the atmosphere as a fluke – a bit of spare payload. They were interested in that parameter.”
If they invented weather satellites to monitor global climate, they did a lousy job. Why did it take until the 1990s for anyone to even attempt to use them to estimate global temperature? Why does it require all sorts of statistical games to derive a temperature for the lower troposphere?
“Think about why (I gave a clue with the invention of the mercury thermometer).”
The mercury thermometer was invented to give more accurate temperature readings. What exactly is the clue I’m meant to be taking from this?
Bellman is not, perhaps, aware that the satellites measuring global temperature from space were designed to do just that.
The “then” isn’t picked. The fact that you have to continue with this lie just proves that you aren’t interested in science.
Really? It isn’t picked. It’s just a coincidence that the current start point, out of 500 or so previous months, just happens to be the one that gives the longest possible sub-zero trend?
I’m just not sure what you thin the word “picked” means.
Starting from today, that’s the point at which the trend stops being insignificant.
There is no picking going on.
Why don’t you learn a little bit about math and statistics and stop making such a fool of yourself.
I may not know much, but I do know a bit of math and statistics – that’s why I find so much of this data torturing so painful.
So are you going to explain what you mean by the zero trend becoming significant means? What’s your null-hypothesis? What level of significance are you using? And what does any of this have to do with calling today the start point?
It really is sad when people claim to be bright have to act as dumb as you do in order to defend the indefensible.
The answer to all of your questions have been given over and over again, but you keep asking.
It’s almost as if you aren’t bright enough to come up with a real argument.
I see, personal insults rather than actually attempting to answer the questions.
Not relevant to my point. However quite expected of those who wish to promote an agenda rather than science.
“Start your graph at the coldest period in the last 100 years.”
1) I started the graph in December 1978, the start point for UAH data.
2) No data set suggests 1978/9 was the coldest period in the last 100 years.
3) Lord Monckton starts his pauses at the warmest points in the last 100 years.
No, I start my graph in the present and work back from there. Do pay attention.
I was being criticized for starting the graph in December 1978, supposedly the coldest period in the last 100 years. I assume the argument is in so doing I was exaggerating the warming trend. Would it have been acceptable if I started the graph in the present and worked back to the coldest period in the last 100 years?
Else where I point out that the trend starting in September 2010 is warming at the rate of over 4°C / century. I worked that out by starting in the present and working back from there. Is that an acceptable way of determining a trend?
But, but it were -10 in Dunny Creek las’ night.
Bellman has not shown the first and still longer Pause in his graph. Do try to keep up. A stair in which the ratio of the run to the rise lengthens will have a lower overall slope. That is why Bellman is so very careful to avoid making mention of the elephant in the room: the fact that the rate of anthropogenic warming is about a third of what was originally predicted.
“Bellman has not shown the first and still longer Pause in his graph. Do try to keep up.”
Here you go.
“A stair in which the ratio of the run to the rise lengthens will have a lower overall slope.”
So why not just state what the overall slope is, rather than all this pause nonsense? Better still, explain how these pauses are slowing down the overall warming rate? What was the slope up to the start of this current pause compared with the slope today? I’m guessing you don’t do that because so far every “pause” has resulted in an increase in the overall slope.
“That is why Bellman is so very careful to avoid making mention of the elephant in the room: the fact that the rate of anthropogenic warming is about a third of what was originally predicted”
I’ve discussed that else where in the comments, but the headline of this particle is not “warming is a third of what was predicted in 1990”, it’s “the new pause lengthens…”. If you don’t want people to focus on the pause, maybe you shouldn’t make such a big deal out of it.
Still no hockey stick “emergency”.
Still no sequitur..
Bellman whining about non-sequiturs, now that thar is funny.
… so very careful to avoid making mention of the elephant in the room: the fact that the rate of anthropogenic warming is about a third of what was originally predicted.
That is a dwarf baby-elephant. Maybe malnourished due to a diet of cherries.
Firstly, what was ‘originally predicted’? Apparently this is from IPCC FAR (1990). But why this particular model? Last year Hausfather et al published a review of 11 papers containing 17 model projections from 1970 onwards. Why select just this one? By the way the majority of the models were found to be skillful, you can see how IPCC 1990 performed in Figure 2.
Cherry number one.
Secondly, IPCC FAR did not present a single prediction, it presented four. Clearly a physics-based climate model will produce different outputs if fed with different inputs in the form of forcings. The GHG forcings trajectory is a result of many factors including economic growth and pollution controls, the prediction of which is outside the competence of the IPCC. So they developed a range of future scenarios, labelled A-D, designed to bracket the plausible outcomes, calculated the forcings for each and ran the model against each one. Lord Monckton always quotes the most extreme scenario – Scenario A – as the prediction.
In fact the only legitimate way to assess the predictive skill of IPCC FAR is to examine which of the Scenarios most closely matched how forcings actually evolved, which turns out to be between Scenarios B and C, and examine the associated temperature increases under those scenarios. These were
“average rates of increase in global mean temperature over the next century are estimated to be about 0 2°C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0 1°C per decade (Scenario C) and about 0.1 °C per decade (Scenario D)”
The trend in UAH – all the data – is 0.13C/decade. Cherry number two. The elephant just disappeared.
One question lingers, why does His Lordship continue only to cite a Scenario which never actually happened?
“I had not recalled that IPCC had made its 1 k by 2025 prediction under Scenario A. However, Scenario A was its business-as-usual scenario, and it had incorrectly predicted a far greater rate of forcing, and hence of temperature change, than actually occurred”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-model-exposes-serious-errors-in-complex-computer-models-and-reveals-that-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/
Other sources: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337753937_Evaluating_the_Performance_of_Past_Climate_Model_Projections
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Some more trend cherry picking. Temperatures have been warming at a rate equivalent to over 4°C / century since September 2010, an accelerated warming trend of 10 years and 9 months. Since October 2002 (a period equal to 224 months, the length of the old pause), temperatures have been warming at the rate of 1.85°C / century.
Since March 2009 (when Monckton was predicting no more than half a degree Fahrenheit [0.28°C] by the end of the century), temperatures have been warming at a rate of 3°C / century.
Even your own graph does not show from 2009 a trend for 3c a century, nonsense.
You could try calculating the trend yourself. I get, from March 2009 to May 2021 a warming trend equivalent to 0.302°C / decade, equivalent to about 0.36°C degrees of warming over that period.
Of course, as I say, it’s a bit of a cherry pick.
Here’s the trend before and after March 2009.
Bellman your just extrapolating ,your figure of 3 c a cent is nonsense ,you don’t know what the temps will be in the next 20 years , what we do know is past climate predictions are not panning out at all, when I said your graph your pause graph which is yours
I made no comment on what the temperature would be in 20 years time. I don’t assume the trend since 2009 will continue, I’m pretty sure it won’t. I’m simply applying the logic Monckton uses when he compares the rate of change over whatever period suits his case, and compares it with his interpretation of IPCC predictions.
The whole point is its not LMs case he drawing upon a statement made by ipcc.its not him setting the parameters,
My bad 10 years. to extrapolate from 10 years to a cent warming of 3c is nonsense, your own example, if you don’t assume and your pretty sure it won’t, then your comment is misplaced,misleading ,
All true. You can verify it here.
This is just random variation. A cherry-picked “pause” would need to be show no warming for about 30 years to be statistically significant. Do we really need to reshow the video of the dog walking on a lead? Or the Skeptical Science escalator?
Its not a cherry picked pause ,its a pause, a second pause, the real problem here is AGW does not seem to have any effect on natural climate drivers, with co2 still rising cooling natural events just keep happening , it really does seem co2 is playing little to no part ineffecting anything,apart from the hysteria in the global warming Church.
They have to lie about the science, because the science doesn’t support them.
So why isn’t “30 years” a form of “cherry picking”?
Why isn’t say “1500 years” a better perspective on climate behavior?
Exactly, the 30 years that the IPCC arbitrarily adopted as the period that defines “climate” as opposed to weather” was indeed cherry picking. Before that the period was +60 years.
especially if the NAO is a 60 year beastie.
There are areas on the planet where the climate is measured in hundreds of years and in the case of the Atacama … millennia. To me, the entire premise that Earth has a single “climate” which can be studied independently to provide detailed future conditions is absurd. It’s a travesty of science and a mockery of geology. By definition, “climate is the average weather of a particular location over time.” How can anyone make sense of averaging the entire globe?
The entire study, based on that premise is just so much pap, pretentious mush … baby food.
A period of 30 years is extraordinarily convenient since it allows proponents of CAGW to collect their fat salaries until retirement age. By the time their deceit is uncovered they are safely in well-remunerated retirement.
Or Russia colluuuusion 😉
FIrst off, how is starting the measurement in the present, “cherry picking”.
Unless you are trying to redefine that term too.
First they said that a 6 year pause would be needed to refute their models.
When the pause started approaching 6 years, they re-crunched the numbers and found out they were wrong. It would take a 15 year pause to refute their models.
When the pause started approaching 15 years, they recrunched their numbers and discovered that they were wrong, it would take a 20 year pause to refute their models.
Now they are declaring that only a 30 year pause would refute their models.
And they wonder why we are laughing at them.
6 years should be long enough to connect to rising CO2 levels
Simon is wrong. According to the U.S. State of the Climate report in 2008, a pause of 15 years or more would be enough to demonstrate fundamental problems with the models. The First Great Pause was 18 years 9 months in length. Now we have a second Pause. The effect of long Pauses is to slow the long-run warming rate, which, as the head posting explains, is a very long way below what was originally predicted.
“The effect of long Pauses is to slow the long-run warming rate…”
The first pause slowed the warming rate down from 0.88°C / century to 1.1°C / century. This current pause has slowed the rate down to 1.35°C / century.
Proper metrology states that these three numbers are indistinguishable from one another.
I think you mean proper statistics show these are not statistically significantly different from each other. And I’d agree. So congratulations, you’ve just disproved Lord Monckton’s claim that pauses are slowing the long-run warming rate.
“According to the U.S. State of the Climate report in 2008, a pause of 15 years or more would be enough to demonstrate fundamental problems with the models”
Looking through that report I can’t see any references to models or pause so I must be missing something. Could someone point out (even the noble lord himself) where I can find it?
Here is the link to the report:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/200813#snow
And this is the global report but I still can’t find any models or pauses:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/200813
I think you just learned a valuable lesson in the art of Monckton-reading. 😉
Good analysis, LCM.
I just posted something on albedo. Maybe ppl are interested:
http://phzoe.com/2021/06/01/on-albedo/
I’ll read it again in the morning, after a quick read it does seem its rarely if ever mentioned in climate papers👍
The above article and another one at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/rss-shows-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/ document two back-to-back “pauses” in global warming (a step shift between them occurring around CY2014), neither of which were predicted by any of the 68 simulations from the 13 computers models used in CMIP6.
And one wonders why CMIP6 did not conduct model comparisons against more accurate and/or difference data sets, such as the ARGO float network for sea-surface—and near sea-surface—temperature trending, and NOAA’s U.S. Climate Reference Network for lower atmospheric air temperature-over-land trending.
At the time I remember the count down in which people like Phill Jones of the CRU kept saying the “pause” would not be valid unless it lasted for (I believe) 15 years. When it passed that dead line they just moved the goal posts … as they did with every other failed “prediction”. This was when they were being intentionally ambivalent about predictions vs. projections. This whole goat rodeo has taken over 3 decades to alter our language, the scientific method, basic logic and even what the null hypothesis means (among other things).
Figure 2 with red, blue, and green temperature curves. No explanation for these curves, what they are.
1-sigma uncertainty bounds
Hey, who shut off the CO2 for the last 6 years and 2 months?
It’s odd how, with all these pauses in warming, one after another it appears, we never actually see much change in the (still) statistically significant long-term warming trend.
Odder yet, if you run the UAH data from the start up to the month before the start of this latest ‘pause’, March 2015, the warming rate is +0.11C per decade (green line on chart). But if you include this latest period of ‘pause’ in the whole data set, again from the beginning, the warming rate in UAH increases to +0.14 C per decade (blue line).
The reason is simple enough. While there has been no increase in temperature over the past 6 yr 2 mths, it has still been one of the warmest periods in the UAH record. This feeds back into the linear regression maths used to calculate the overall trend (the exact same one used by Dr Spencer).
There may have been no warming in UAH over the past 6 years or so, but continued high temperatures for most of that period mean the overall warming rate has increased considerably.
The problems with the escalator ideas are:
1) CO2 does not go up in fits and starts. It goes up smoothly (with wiggles for annual seasonal variation). If one accepts the escalator idea one also has to accept that CO2 is not directly related to global temperature.
2) Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature at all timescales except, apparently, now as man has overwhelmed the natural reservoirs. But if CO2 drives temperature over our current timescale then something needs to be holding the temperature back and pulsing it. This temperature reservoir is unknown. If it’s the oceans then the CO2 / Temperature reserves are not being overwhelmed. Remember that solubility of CO2 in the Oceans is temperature dependent and yet the CO2 rise is linear.
3) There is no evidence that the escalator is going up at all. It could be jumping up for a century and jumping down for a century purely naturally. As we have no idea of what mechanism stops the CO2 driving the climate immediately we have no mechanism for the escalator. It’s an article of Faith, not Reason.
Which is fine. You are welcome to your religion. But don’t clothe it in pseudo-scientology.
“The problems with the escalator ideas are:”
You’re arguing the wrong side here, I think. Scientists think that there is just a trend caused by rising GHGs, with natural variation, specifically ENSO, superimposed. It is Lord M and co who like to see it as a series of ever warmer pauses.
Not sure I agree with that.
The assumption is that the CO2 drives warming. But it clearly doesn’t drive it directly as the warming is not smooth like the CO2 measurements (not saying it doesn’t drive it at all).
That discrepancy needs to be addressed. And I am addressing it. It’s the desperate escalator hangers who don’t want to consider what the discrepancy means.
Saying ENSO overwhelms the trend misses the interaction between temperature and CO2 absorption in the oceans – proven every year at Mauna Loa.
The escalator is not the get-out-of-jail card the catastrophists hope for.
“It’s the desperate escalator hangers…”
Again, let me remind you who they are. Not scientists. Or if you think otherwise, say who they are, with quotes.
Mr Stokes is no architect, or he would realize that if the ratio of the run to the rise increases the steepness of the staircase decreases. If only he were not so prejudiced, he would admit that the rate of global warming is nothing like what was originally predicted. Long Pauses are one easily-understandable manifestation of that fact.
The trend that so called scientists believe is caused by CO2, started long before the increase is CO2.
It also does not track the increase in CO2.
CO2 has been increasing more or less steadily since the 1950s. Temperature on the other hand has gone up, down, and stayed the same for long periods of time.
Those two facts, all by themselves, put the lie to the claim that CO2 must be the dominant driver of climate.
Beyond that, over the last 6000 years, global temperatures have dropped between 5 and 10C. Against that background, a few tenths of a degree or warming is a blessed relief.
“Beyond that, over the last 6000 years, global temperatures have dropped between 5 and 10C.”
Any evidence for that? All the sources I could find suggest the difference was more like 1°C or less.
When you limit your search to those sites that you agree with, that’s hardly surprising.
I jsut did a simple internet search to see if I could find any evidence to support you claim. I wasn’t limiting myself to any sites. The balls still very much in your court – point to the evidence that global temperatures have dropped 5 – 10°C in the last 6000 years.
Bellman,
You are right – absolutely no-one but MarkW says that.
The Desperate Nail tries to imagine that global warming has increased considerably during the six years of no warming at all. The increase in the long-run trend, however, is equivalent to no more than 0.3 K/century equivalent. IPCC in 1990 had tried to predict 3.4 K/century equivalent, and that is not happening and is not going to happen.
I’m not suggesting that temperatures have warmed recently; just that their continued high level has bolstered the long-term warming trend. This is self-evidently true. Before the start of this latest ‘pause’ the full linear temperature increase in UAH (Dec 1978 to Mar 2015) was +0.43C; as of May 2021, this now stands at +0.58C.
If a statistician had analysed the UAH data in Mar 2015, they would have noted that it contained a slight but statistically significant warming trend (+0.11 ±0.06 C/dec (2σ)). Shown the same data now, with this recent ‘pause’ period included, they would note that the statistically significant warming trend had increased significantly (+0.14 ±0.05 C/decade (2σ)). Not only is the trend higher, the confidence margins are closing in too.
This demonstrates the absurdity of cherry-picking recent short periods of no warming (or rapid cooling, or rapid warming) and concluding, based just on that short period, that any long term trend has paused/reversed/accelerated. One might even say it smacks of desperation.
IPCC in 1990 had tried to predict 3.4 K/century equivalent, and that is not happening and is not going to happen.
I will make a prediction of my own: Lord Monkton will continue to make this debunked claim even though he knows he is referencing one scenario out of four, a scenario which never came to pass and which ‘incorrectly predicted a far greater rate of forcing, and hence of temperature change, than actually occurred‘ (His words).
TFN, your concluding sentence has this ambiguous phrase ” . . . the overall warming rate has increased considerably.”
How convenient for you to have left the meaning of “overall” undefined.
As a counter example, if I used a time period starting with the Holocene Optimum peak temperature, about 7,500 years ago, I could accurately state that the overall cooling rate increased considerably 500 years ago
Reference black line on top graph available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum .
It should be clear that I was explicitly referring to the linear warming rate. The total amount of warming in UAH as of Mar 2015 was +0.43C. As of May 2021, this has increased to +0.58C. The amount of uncertainty in the warming rate has also reduced. Anyone is free to calculate this for themselves.
There no such material thing as a “linear warming rate” . . . there is only a mathematical linear regression analysis (i.e., a curve-fit) to varying data over a given timespan for a given parameter, such as global temperature.
What one can infer from linear curve fitting of such data is highly dependent (both direction and magnitude of calculated slope) on the selected starting and ending points defining the data set being analyzed.
This should be clear, especially from the counterexample that I offered.
It is the mathematical linear regression analysis that I am referring to. Exactly the same one used by Roy Spencer in his monthly UAH updates, which also confirm the current warming rate as +0.14C per decade.
Have you ever asked on Roy’s site why he uses this method, which you seem to disapprove of?
It is obvious . . . there is not need to ask Roy.
I certainly do NOT disapprove of Dr. Roy Spencer’s method of presenting his global temperature date . . . and I have no idea how you derived such a conclusion based on anything I posted. Please explain this statement of yours.
Roy Spencer clearly labels his graph as plotted data from UAH, as well as his linear regression curve fit updates being based solely on that data.
UAH uses only satellite-based measurements for the reporting on global temperatures. The UAH satellite temperature data set infers the temperature of various atmospheric layers from satellite measurements of the oxygen radiance in the microwave band, using Microwave Sounding Unit temperature measurements.
Such satellite data was not available prior to 1978.
Obviously, with such a data set one could not possible look back to earlier times, say thousands of years ago, to examine temperature trends over such long time intervals.
“Mathematical liner regression analysis” is NOT dependent on the given time interval of a data set, although its output certainly is.
The most likely updated business as ususal emission scenario for the next 30 years is a constant emission of 35 GtCO2/y. Which is slightly below the SRES A1T scenario.
The very cold eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
The magnetic activity of the solar wind is still at the level of the last solar minimum.
Is this remotely surprising? No.
Easterling and Wehner. “Is the climate warming or cooling?”
“Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is now cooling. Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037810
“Since IPCC’s prediction of 1.8 C° anthropogenic warming is compared with preindustrial temperature, one must deduct the HadCRUT4 0.54 C° warming from 1850 to April 1991.”
Err, no. The 1990 IPCC WG1 report defined pre-industrial as being mid 18th century, e.g.
“Current atmospheric CH4 concentrations, at 1.72 ppmv, are now more than double the pre-industrial value (1750-1800) of about 0.8 ppmv, and are increasing at a rate of 0.9% per year. “
page 22
“ Based on the IPCC Business as Usual scenarios, the energy-balance upwelling diffusion model with best judgement parameters yields estimates of global warming from pre-industrial times (taken to be 1765) to the year 2030 between 1 3°C and 2 8″C, with a best estimate of 2 0°C This corresponds to a predicted rise trom 1990 of 0 7-1 5°C with a best estimate of 1 1″C “
(page 177)
Dikran Marsupial asks the question whether long Pauses are surprising and says No. The head posting does not address the question whether long Pauses are surprising. It reports that, whether or not the present Pause is surprising, it is lengthening. Get over it.
Fair enough. I should have asked “is this trend interesting” and again, the answer is “no”. Especially being a *series* of posts monitoring a trend which is neither surprising or interesting.
Do you have statistically significant evidence that there actually *is* a pause (i.e. a change in the underlying rate of warming, rather than an artefact of weather noise)?
No.
“Get over it”
Yawn.
The most import question goes unasked and thus never addressed- what is the optimum climate for the biosphere we all depend upon for life? Is the current climate trend moving towards or away from that optimum? To what extent is human activity influencing natural trends?
The one to which our society and particularly agricultural practices have been adapted to over the course of a few millenia.
It is the change that causes the disruption, rather than the eventual temperature, as it requires us to adapt to the change which has a cost. It might be worth taking steps to mitigate against the change so that we spend less adapting. However that is mostly an economic/political issue rather than a scientific one.
“To what extent is human activity influencing natural trends?”
Have you tried looking it up in the IPCC reports?
That would be like looking up the answer to the question “how did human life begin” in the Bible.
As usual, dismissive rhetoric instead of actually going and having a look. Hint there is a chapter on “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing” and another on “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional”
Of course the dismissive rhetoric is sufficient to amuse those in the clique.
Fascinating how marsupials assume that if they agree with something, it must be correct.
Please demonstrate that the IPCC documents are anything more than the opinions of a few politicians?
A brief look at the list of authors should suffice. But then again, you haven’t looked, have you?
I have, I stand by my description.
IPCC is not a dispassionate or reliable source.
Some irony there.
The only irony here, is your belief that the IPCC isn’t to be questioned.
LOL, anybody can question the IPCC reports, the point is that you actually have to read them first, to find out what it is you are questioning.
Fascinating how the marsupial assumes that the only reason why people disagree with it, is because they are ignorant.
It really is sad how the religious cling to their sacred texts.
What makes you think the IPCC is the last word on this subject?
Nobody said the IPCC reports are the last word, just that they are a reasonable place to start (given that setting out the basic science is the purpose of the WG1 report).
However apparently even starting is too much to ask from some. ;o)
Would this be the same IPCC where the summaries are written before the individual chapters, and the chapter authors are instructed to conform to the summaries.
Marsupial says change is bad. Cardinal Godfrey, however, said that change is only good when it is in the right direction. Warmer weather is the right direction. And, since the rate of warming is and will continue to be around a third to a quarter of current midrange predictions, the effect will be net-beneficial.
citation required (on warming being a net benefit).
Excess mortality in the UK rises markedly in Winter:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2019to2020provisionaland2018to2019final
There is more to “net benefit” than seasonal death rates
(hint: if the average temperature went up, that doesn’t necessarily mean the annual death rate would go down, it might just even out the distribution of deaths throughout the year).
Also the UK is not the whole world.
So you assume that Brits react to cold weather differently than do people who live in other places?
Please see the book chapter on stature in Britain which you cite below.
You really are clutching at straws, if a colder than normal winter hits a area in this case the UK ,then we see excess mortality, your argument of distribution has little merit, its the cold that tips the mortality rate , eg age is not necessarily a leading factor if the elderly could afford to keep warm,the leading factor is affordability.
The Holocene Climatic Optimum, during which agriculture spread across the globe, was warmer than now.
The Little Ice Age Cool Period saw mass famines, constant war, record pandemics and societal collapse. The Four Horsemen rode roughshod over humanity, as glaciers crushed alpine villages.
Yes, but are agricultural practices the same now as they were then? Are they the same in the U.K. as in the fertile crescent where agriculture likely began? No, we have adapted with the slowly changing climate and to the climate of different regions.
“The Little Ice Age Cool Period saw mass famines”
did I mention it was the *change* that caused hardship because of a need to adapt (and the faster the rate of change, the more difficult adaption becomes).
I’m still waiting for a citation on the net benefit of global warming…
Look up NASA on the greening of the planet.
Check agricultural journals about the benefits of a longer growing season.
The data exists, even if it can’t be found in the IPCC.
No, a colder world is worse in every way, period, ie drier, windier, you name it.
Agriculture today supports a much higher population. If we reverted to LIA conditions, it couldn’t. Warming affects the tropics little, but greatly benefits higher latitudes, as with longer growing seasons for Canada, Manchuria, Ukraine and Russia.
More CO2 has greened the planet, allowing vegetation to spread across previous deserts, thanks partly to the water savings from plants’ needing to keep their stomata open less time, and partly just to having more vital CO2 with which to make sugar.
About the only good thing attributable to the LIA is the development of industry. After the forests were cut down for firewood, the people turned to coal mining, which led to steam power, first to pump water out of mines.