The New Pause lengthens yet again

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The New Pause has again lengthened by another two months. On the normative UAH lower-troposphere dataset there has been no global warming over the 6 years 8 months from January 2015 to August 2021. As always, the Pause is calculated as the longest period ending in the present that shows no warming trend, taken as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies for the lower troposphere:

The trend on the entire UAH dataset since December 1978, a period of 42 years 9 months, is equivalent to only 1.35 C°/century, even though the data began shortly after the naturally-occurring Great Pacific Shift of 1976 that is responsible for much of the warming over most of the period.

Furthermore, over the 18 years 1984-2001 a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover was responsible for most of the period radiative forcing (Pinker et al. 2005) and hence global warming.

IPCC (2021) tries to pretend that there has been 1.27 K global warming since 1750, all of which is imagined to be anthropogenic. However, the HadCRUT4 dataset showed only 0.91 K since 1850, but HadCRUT5, in preparation for IPCC’s latest report, pushes that up to 1.04 K.

Since January 2014, the beginning of the year after the previous IPCC Assessment Report, there has been only 1/8 C° global warming.

It is by now clear that even with constant adjustments to nearly all of the major temperature datasets it is difficult to discern clearly a large anthropogenic influence. But that is not what the world is being told.

Every natural disaster – Hurricane Ida, the drought in much of the western U.S., the wildfires in some nations, the floods in others – is instantly and automatically blamed on global warming that is barely happening.

A simple question for the climate fanatics: how can global warming be worse than you thought given that it is a whole lot less than you predicted?

4.8 57 votes
Article Rating
470 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
September 1, 2021 10:16 pm

The Pause that keeps giving warmist/alarmists a pause over it.

La-Nina watch is still in the forecast for Fall and Winter time which should help the pause along for a few more months.

Cold & Warm Episodes by Season

griff
Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 1, 2021 11:13 pm

A pause on a proxy measured troposphere, from only one of the teams researching temps like this?

I think they see what they want to see…

Chris Hanley
Reply to  griff
September 1, 2021 11:38 pm

All the main GAT series since 2015 show no trend or a falling trend.

Loydo
Reply to  Loydo
September 2, 2021 1:10 am

Where you’ll find

comment image?fit=300%2C225&ssl=1

Derg
Reply to  Loydo
September 2, 2021 2:36 am

Hey but you believe man did not land on the moon….Lol indeed

Loydo
Reply to  Derg
September 2, 2021 3:50 am

Huh?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Loydo
September 2, 2021 5:14 am

If Loydo had bothered to look at the pictures in the head posting he would have seen the full trend since December 1978 clearly shown.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
September 1, 2021 11:53 pm

So another team (RSS) doesn’t see what it wants to see, Griff? If you charge bad faith on your opponents, should you not analyze the claims of your friends?

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 2, 2021 5:31 am

Leftists never judge themselves by the standards they hold others to.
If they did, how could they justify the lifestyles of their leaders?

John Endicott
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 2, 2021 9:39 am

leftists live by “rules for thee but not for me”. If they didn’t have double standards they’ve have no standards at all

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 3:34 am

“I think they see what they want to see…”

And you, griff, how much of your talk only repeats what you want to see?

Ron Long
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 3:38 am

griff, in the WATTS article posted August 31, 2021 at 2:36 pm, I posted a comment about your expertise and you responded with a challenge to say something concrete and scientific, which, being an actual Scientist, I did in a follow-up. Would you please return to that posting and refute my response to your request? Thank you.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Ron Long
September 2, 2021 5:39 am

Don’t be silly, Griff only does drive bys, a la Mosher.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 2, 2021 9:24 am

Griff is a failure even as a troll.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 2, 2021 8:28 pm

What ever happened to Mosher?

John Endicott
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
September 7, 2021 6:09 am

Does anyone really care? Mosh devolved into a drive-by troll long ago. Such trolls are a dime a dozen.

Captain Climate
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 4:52 am

There’s no urban heat island effect in satellite temperatures. As compared to surface measurements, which are chock full of it, and pairwise homogenization, which spreads it across even the clean data.

David A
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 5:10 am

You are critical of the most comprehensive accurate unaffected by UHI or site setting changes system we have? Do you know that UAH is verified by the most accurate weather balloon carried instruments we have?

Or, are you seeing only what you want to see?

Davidf
Reply to  David A
September 2, 2021 5:56 pm

My understanding is, also, that the US Climate Reference network (by their own admission, gold standard) shows little if any warming since 2005. can anybody recall that post?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 5:30 am

I think they see what they want to see…

I don’t care who you are, that thar is funny.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  MarkW
September 2, 2021 9:20 am

Funny ha-ha? Or funny peculiar?

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 6:10 am

Sorry, griff: you are in a pause of your intelligence (if you got one of the later, of course)…

DrEd
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 9:21 am

All griffter sees are the BS from the failed models, not facts.

Gene
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 11:09 am

Some people just can’t accept reality! Griff… is this a religion for you?

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 2, 2021 11:34 am

More cold – as we predicted in 2002.

EARLY-SEASON SNOWFALL HITS UTTARAKHAND, INDIA, EUROPEAN SKI AREAS OPEN IN SEPTEMBER AFTER HEAVY AUGUST DUMPS, + ‘GREEN’ EUROPE FACES ENERGY CRISIS AS WINTER LOOMS
September 2, 2021 Cap Allon
Prepare for energy restrictions, empty grocery store shelves, and ZERO help from the emergency services–work with the assumption that nobody is coming to help.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
September 3, 2021 1:57 pm

The BBC’s response – “warming causes cooling”

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58425526

Anthony
September 1, 2021 10:39 pm

Lying with statistics, is something I was good at seeing when I was doing my economics courses in the 1970s, it is a skill most can learn. In the case of temps rising since 1750, they don’t ask what the climate was actually like in 1750 (really rotten) and they fail to notice that it started to slowly warm from 1700 not 1750. In England, by 1810, we managed to warm from the 1600s mini ice-age so much, that the river Thames stopped freezing solid (yippee), though, we still had the cold Dickens years to go through, with snow in London feet thick from the end of November to the end of April.(read Pickwick Papers) Yes, you would need to be bonkers to want to go back to that. So, even though God warned them not to do it, liars do like to lie.

griff
Reply to  Anthony
September 1, 2021 11:16 pm

Well now we have a new, additional rapid warming, from human CO2 , on top of that historical/natural warming… and do note the Thames stopped freezing when it wasn’t dammed by old London Bridge any more

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
September 1, 2021 11:48 pm

Now all you need to do is provide some evidene to support your imaginings of human causation. Prove that CO2 has had any influence in the warming at all.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Rory Forbes
September 2, 2021 3:11 pm

He’ll just bite your ankles instead.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 2, 2021 10:35 pm

🙂

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
September 1, 2021 11:58 pm

Uh, Griff, warming is cyclical. Prove CO2 didn’t cause early 20th Century warming, but did cause late 20th Century warming. It seems obvious the world has warmed from the Little Ice Age. Prove that CO2 caused all or most of that warming. UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs run hot.

Mr.
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 2, 2021 8:55 am

Your observation is effectively laying down a null hypothesis challenge for Griff to address.

So come on Griff, we’re getting down to the nuts & bolts of proper science now –
answer Dave’s observation: if the temps warmed in earlier times when CO2 was at “safe” levels, how can you attribute recent warming solely to man-made CO2?
Whatever made the temps rise earlier obviously had nothing to do with CO2, so what’s to say the same influence(s) aren’t responsible now, since we’ve established by past observation that CO2 alone doesn’t cut it?

Reply to  Mr.
September 2, 2021 11:51 am

Slight modification requested to include Anthony’s comment giffiepoo is trolling.

answer Dave’s observation: if the temps warmed in earlier times when CO2 was at “safe” levels, how can you attribute recent warming solely to man-made CO2?”

Could be:

answer Dave’s observation: if the temperatures have been warming since 1700 when CO2 was at alleged “safe” levels, how can you attribute recent warming solely to man-made CO2?

Until you and your alarmist loser trollop pals prove otherwise, the recent warming is a continuation of natural trend warming since 1700.

Which itself is a continuation of temperature declines over the Holocene.

R Terrell
Reply to  Mr.
September 2, 2021 12:30 pm

Don’t confuse Griff with mere FACTS, Mr., his mind is already made up!

decnine
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 1:05 am

Nope. The last Frost Fair took place in 1814 – about 20 years before the old London Bridge was demolished. Also, in the early 19th century, the Thames froze at Rotherhithe which is well downstream of London Bridge and in a strongly tidal part of the river.

Reply to  decnine
September 2, 2021 5:10 am

You won’t get anywhere using facts with griff!

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Steve Richards
September 2, 2021 5:44 am

You won’t even be given the courtesy of a reply

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Richards
September 2, 2021 6:41 pm

griff has his own facts and doesn’t need any from anyone else!

Lawrence 13
Reply to  decnine
September 2, 2021 10:34 am

Yes but as a Londoner and sceptic I have to say that the embankment of the river made it flow faster but to the east and west of London pre drained marshland slowed the river down

Greytide
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 2:44 am

Can you please provide evidence that the tiny human contribution to CO2 has had ANY measurable effect on temerature.You keep coming out with unsubstantiated statements and have NEVER offered any scientific, testable evidence that the hypothesis that Human CO2 is a driver of climate is in any way true. Put up or shut up.

MarkW
Reply to  Greytide
September 2, 2021 5:34 am

In the minds of warmistas like griff, models are proof.

R Terrell
Reply to  Greytide
September 2, 2021 12:43 pm

If you could put ALL of humanity (7 billion?) in one giant spot, from space it would hardly even show up as a small dot, yet we are to believe that humanity is the cause of all that horrible CO2? And that the CO2 is causing the earth to heat up, faster than it ever has, even though we KNOW it has been much higher before and didn’t cause any heating then, either! Looking down on earth, again, at all those swarming humans is similar to watching a huge swarm of ants from a height, and just about as remarkable. We humans hardly make a tiny mark on the earth. Yet some are so egotistical as to think that we are ‘harming’ the planet? Everything ON this planet, BELONGS on this planet, save for a few meteors and comets and such that ‘migrated’ here over the past 5 billion or so years! If we humans find a use for some of those ‘things’ we are not adding to or distracting from the earth. It, and US, too, are all just part of what we call the ‘earth’. Everything in and ON the earth BELONGS here! Nothing is ever wasted, on a long enough timeline. But people like Griff, and, of course, Chicken Little, all need something to fear, so today’s subject is ‘Global Warming/Climate Change’. But, the sky is NOT falling. Not yet, anyway.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  R Terrell
September 2, 2021 1:08 pm

My calculation – 90billion could tread water in Lake Superior, each with a sq m of space.

Another: The GND (green new deal) in the US estimated to cost $90 trillion. A dollar bill is ~15cm long. The distance earth to sun is 15 trillion cm. So 1 trillion bucks end to end would reach the sun. 90 trillion would make 45 round trips.

ADAV
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 3:19 am

Apply your supposed skills in statistical physics, the laws of physics, math and Raman Lidar observations to see if you can debunk this compilation of known facts;

“Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory

Blair D. Macdonald”

https://vixra.org/pdf/1811.0498v2.pdf

Izaak Walton
Reply to  ADAV
September 2, 2021 2:41 pm

That is trivial to debunk. N2 and O2 have a zero electric dipole moment due to symmetry and therefore they cannot couple to linearly polarised light. Thus IR light is not absorbed by N2 and O2 despite those molecules having transitions are the right wavelengths. Raman spectroscopy excites those transitions by down conversion from an excited state which is allowed by quantum mechanics.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 2, 2021 4:27 pm

Izzy denies quantum mechanics!
It would rather believe late 19th century pseudo science.

Try reading the paper next time, D. izzy.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  ATheoK
September 2, 2021 7:56 pm

The electric dipole moment is well defined in quantum mechanics and to lowest order mediates the coupling between a quantum system and light. Hence if a molecule has a zero dipole moment then it will not absorb linearly polarised light. It is what is known as a forbidden transition.

Sara
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 4:53 am

OK, Griffypoo, you have to answer this question: Do you prefer to freeze to death and not be able to cook food and stay warm, or would you rather have a sunny, warm environment to live in, with appropriate seasonal changes?

You seem to be unable to coordinate seasonal changes with normal weather. Do you live in a sealed environment? That’s not healthy!!!

Seasonal changes are normal and part of the planet’s NORMAL cycle of existence. So where I live, we’ve been having a dearth of rainfall and my lawn looks chewed on, despite reseeding spots and watering, and yet we had nice, cool weather up to August 15, when it got hot and obnoxious, and the humidity levels rose substantially. That rise in humidity would be NORMAL for increased summer heat, since water tends to evaporate in heat. Dearth of rain, though, until the other day.

Yeah, water also does something called subliming in cold weather, but that’s going from frozen (ice) state to gas state, which is nothing unusual. Conditions have to be just right for water to do it. Frozen CO2, a/k/a “dry ice”, is notorious for its sublimation antics.

What rapid warming, Griffypoo? I’m really concerned about your misconception of natural events in physics and atmospheric chemistry. never mind how weather works.

R Terrell
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2021 12:48 pm

To Griff, every change in the weather is a CRISES! Something that, to him, has NEVER, EVER happened before, not withstanding people who have actually LIVED through times when it actually DID happen. So, don’t confuse him with facts, because his mind is ALREADY made up, and it doesn’t listen to the truth! AS for living in a sealed environment, we have a president who does that, never ‘hearing’ about anything bad in his proclamations! And yes, it is VERY unhealthy, and not just for him!

Sara
Reply to  R Terrell
September 2, 2021 1:05 pm

I’ve been through more blizzards than I care to count, starting when I was 7 and the summer weather had been quite hot (113F in the the shade) and rainless. Garden nearly wilted, which upset me because when you are 7YO and you plant five rows of garden peas and 4 of radishes and onions, you expect results!!!
Eventually, it rained and everything was back to normal.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 5:17 am

Griff is, as usual, merely peddling the Party Line. We have a small additional warming, not a rapid warming, arising from returning to the atmosphere some of the CO2 that had been there before. Distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic contributions to overall warming remains problematic, but the overall warming rate is small enough to be well within natural variability, which is why only 0.3% of published papers on cloimate chynge state explicitly that recent warming was chiefly anthropogenic.

Lawrence 13
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 10:42 am

The global warming protagonist always chant the mantra ‘trust the science’ yet ignore the Greenland and Antarctica ice core proxies which show we are at the end of the coolest and longest interglacial of the lot. We need to hope and pray that any man made co2 helps delay the overdue period of glaciation

R Terrell
Reply to  Lawrence 13
September 2, 2021 12:52 pm

Yes we’ve proved that we humans can survive a very warm climate, but the evidence is still out on whether we can all survive a global icing like the last few. Luckily, though, it probably won’t occur instantly, we hope, so maybe we can find another planet to migrate to?

Sara
Reply to  R Terrell
September 2, 2021 1:22 pm

It will start with not enough food supplies in grocery stores.

OH, wait, we just had that during that lockdown thingy…!

MarkW
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 5:33 am

That’s an improvement. Griff usually claims that there is no natural warming, it’s all CO2.

BobM
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 6:54 am

So griff, when would you prefer to be alive? Back when the old London Bridge was still standing, i.e., the good old days of River Thames freeze-ups and Frost Fairs and Dickens?

Or today when “we have a new, additional rapid warming, from human CO2”, that will likely kill you (in your estimation), and ruin the lives of your children (hopefully you don’t have any)?

John Endicott
Reply to  BobM
September 2, 2021 9:43 am

If griff has any children he doesn’t need CO2 (or anything else) to ruin their lives, just having him as a parent will do that job.

George T
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2021 6:59 pm

Has not CO2 reached saturation in the atmosphere? I believe we have or rapidly reaching saturation.

Why not see the benefits of increased CO2? Plant food means more food and the expansion of better lands that can be useful to society and a growing world population.

Anyone who only argues CO2 as the driver of warming is being dishonest and lacking in critical thinking skills. Foolish, dangerous and there will be hell to pay when the green energy insanity fails miserably.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Anthony
September 2, 2021 6:22 am

Anthony

You correctly recognize a crucial matter, namely context. Stats without context are worthless. A historical incident without context is meaningless. A snapshot without the complete video is worthless. This is what I find most frustrating in the claims of alarmists that they are so adverse to giving the full context.

Take the recent IPCC report “FAQ 8.3 Climate change and droughts.” It gives a world map with certain brown areas illustrating the caption: “In some regions, drought is expected to increase under future warming.” One of the large brown areas covers the whole of Southern Africa.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 2, 2021 6:53 am

context comment continued:

South African records covering over 350 years describe this area as alternating between droughts and floods. Cape Town in March 2018 was said to be fast approaching Day Zero when they would run out of water. Today the dams are 101.9% full. They have had a succession of four good years of winter rain. In 2007-2010 the country had bumper harvests because of weather conditions. Because of good rainfall across large areas it appears that 2019-2022 will have a repeat of this. However, there are some areas with serious drought like around Port Elizabeth. Their main dam with some 5% has been very low for a number of years. But overall Southern Africa weather has not co-operated with the pundits and context blows up their alarmist narrative.

Last edited 20 days ago by Michael in Dublin
Anthony
Reply to  Anthony
September 2, 2021 8:28 am

I looked this up on Wiki… Old London Bridge (1209–1831) Demolished 1832…….

Anthony
Reply to  Anthony
September 2, 2021 8:35 am

and it still seems from a few comments that, liars do like to lie.

George T
Reply to  Anthony
September 3, 2021 6:49 pm

Anthony,
Exactly! Great observation. The various books I have read detail precisely what you stated. Paintings during that time, ice skating on the Thames River makes your point. Thank goodness the climate has warmed. The low information reader and the MSM would fail to see your point.

Bill
Reply to  Anthony
September 4, 2021 10:10 am

As the Wall Street Journal always said; “If you torture statistics long enough they will confess to anything.” I think this is an apt description of the entire Global Hysteria movement that includes Global Warming and Saars-CoV2. Most of my older friends just want to duck and get out of the way with so little time left. The problem is the same as it has always been; liberty and freedom aren’t free.

JimW
September 1, 2021 11:09 pm

It’s actually worse than that. There is no evidence to support CO2 in control of climate, nor that we are in control of CO2. This is medieval. We are still a superstitious people.

griff
Reply to  JimW
September 1, 2021 11:16 pm

Absolute nonsense! There is any amount of detailed evidence, supported by the indisputable physics of how CO2 works in the atmosphere!

Chris Hanley
Reply to  griff
September 1, 2021 11:29 pm

What is it in the phrase ‘CO2 in control of climate’ that you do not understand?

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  griff
September 1, 2021 11:44 pm
DMacKenzie
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
September 2, 2021 8:00 am

Phillip, that is a very well written paper, fully referenced, difficult to refute the author’s equation based methodology….
full version here
http://article.ijaos.org/pdf/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12.pdf

Last edited 20 days ago by DMacKenzie
jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
September 2, 2021 9:56 am

He’s having a physic.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
September 2, 2021 5:20 pm

That “indisputable physics” is the primary reason that alarmists fear debating skeptics in public.
They have zero proof for the claimed CO₂ physics. Like giffiepoo’s, lolly’s, izzy’s, silly simian’s constant whinging, there is no proof supporting their specious nonsense.

Reply to  griff
September 1, 2021 11:49 pm

It is superstition belief to actually think that industries trading carbon credits (arbitrage profits for international banks and traders) and sending billions of dollars/pounds/euros to a UN Climate Aid Fund (to buy favors) has any relevance to “solving climate change.”

It is all about money and power. IAnd at its core, really not even about money, for if you have all the power, all the money (productvioty output) is yours. The UN, the UNFCCC, and all the carpet bagger climate pseudoscientist rentseekers are all complicit in massive fraud on the public. A confidence game to scam the middle class to give up our freedoms and affluence. The climate scam is Pure Communism at work.

rbabcock
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 2, 2021 5:11 am

It’s all about the money and power, but let’s not forget the gullibility and ignorance of the people that allow it to happen.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  rbabcock
September 2, 2021 5:56 am

Griff, gullible and ignorant? How dare you! 😇

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
September 1, 2021 11:52 pm

Still confused about the meaning of evidence, I see … just like most true believers. “Any amount” also includes “0” so finally you got something right.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 12:03 am

Uh, Griff, the UN IPCC CliSciFi models dictate a tropospheric hot spot. Their “physics” is obviously incorrect. Do you read anything by actual atmospheric physicists like Dr. Lindzen?

Ed Hanley
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 12:07 am

Yes, there IS any amount of evidence, and that amount, when actually measured, approximates zero. Prove me wrong. Use real data.

Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 12:54 am

Seems you have clue how physics work.

Leo Smith
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 1:57 am

Dear Griff
The physics of how CO2 works in the atmosphere supports less than one tenth of the global warming that the IPCC predicts.

Did you not know that?

leitmotif
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 2:05 am

But you can’t reference any.

philincalifornia
Reply to  leitmotif
September 2, 2021 9:10 pm

It’s most often phrased as “there is overwhelming evidence …..’ but, curiously in all its forms, statements like that have never, ever, in the entire history of written and spoken language, been followed by any evidence.

Tony
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 2:37 am

Where’s your proof?

Lrp
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 3:27 am

Can you explain this “indisputable” physics?

Disputin
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 3:43 am

Thank heavens, there is any amount of detailed evidence.

But unfortunately your post seems to have lost that part. Please could you re-post it?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 5:19 am

Griff is, as usual, flat-out wrong. It is known that returning to the atmosphere some of the CO2 that was there before will cause some warming, but it has long been clear that the official predictions of how much warming are substantial exaggerations compared with sober observation.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 1:25 pm

As a Yorkshire Terrier, he does the best he can with the bones they toss to him.

Yip!

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 2, 2021 5:32 pm

Please don’t denigrate Terriers.

Use instead, a common prey of terriers. Invasive obnoxious Norway rats

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  ATheoK
September 2, 2021 6:19 pm

Might be too late, the tag “Yorkie” seems to have stuck. But yeah, Terriers are usually pretty sharp.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 5:55 am

🤣

John Endicott
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 9:45 am

Indeed there is “any amount” and specifically that amount is ****ZERO!!!!****

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 9:54 am

Since the models don’t predict well, we obviously do not know how CO2 really works in the actual, entire atmosphere. Here are your indisputable physics: Physic (fĭz′ĭk) n: 1. A medicine or drug, especially a cathartic.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 11:00 am

Indisputable?
People who write should not use words that they do not know the definition of.

Dave Fair
Reply to  JimW
September 2, 2021 12:00 am

Jim, we do put CO2 into the atmosphere. Relax. UN IPCC CliSciFi models overstate CO2 impacts.

YallaYPoora Kid
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 2, 2021 1:39 am

Where did Jim say any different?

MarkW
Reply to  YallaYPoora Kid
September 2, 2021 5:37 am

nor that we are in control of CO2

Dave Fair
Reply to  YallaYPoora Kid
September 2, 2021 1:30 pm

Jim: “There is no evidence to support CO2 in control of climate, nor that we are in control of CO2.”

Redge
September 1, 2021 11:12 pm

But, but, but Griff told us we were all gonna die of global warming

griff
September 1, 2021 11:12 pm

And the RSS? and the lower atmosphere?

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 12:07 am

Mears adjusted RSS to conform to the team’s meme. Read the derivation of UAH6’s methodology. Anyway, even RSS’s temperature trend is significantly lower than the UN IPCC CliSciFi GCM’s.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 5:23 am

Griff is, as usual, wrong. Some years ago, when Senator Cruz reached out to the Heartland Institute to ask for a single piece of evidence that global warming was not all it was cracked up to be, Joe Bast sent him a graph showing that, at that time, there had been no global warming for 18 years 9 months. NOAA’s State of the Climate report for 2008 had said that any period of 15 years or more without global warming would indicate that the models were wrong.

So the Pause had to be got rid of. I predicted that month that RSS would tamper with their data to eradicate the pause – and that is exactly what the dreadful sMears did – he who calls those who dare to disagree with him “deniers”. RSS is no longer a reliable source.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 10:00 am

Yes, thanks for the perspective and conclusion.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 6:51 pm

I wonder if Karl got a retirement bonus for his role in the fabrication?

John Phillips
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 3, 2021 5:48 am

NOAA’s State of the Climate report for 2008 had said that any period of 15 years or more without global warming would indicate that the models were wrong.

Firstly, to be pedantic, no, it did not. In fact you have to do a bit of detective work to track down the source and details of this canard, it actually appears in a paper published in 2009 by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) entitled ‘Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?’ which is in turn included in the review article ‘State of the Climate 2008’ published annually as a special supplement to BAMS. Clear?

(It also appears in Lord Monckton et al 2015 ‘Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model’. Quote:

” it is often stated that periods ≥15 years without warming are inconsistent with models’ predictions. For instance, 68., 69. state: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 year or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”.”

Reference 69 is to the ‘Falsify?’ paper.) 

But what was actually being discussed? What were these ‘simulations’? Let us take a look:

El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise. We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007).

Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate. “

Two things are clear: the ’15 years’ refers to surface rather than tropospheric datasets, more importantly it refers to datasets that have been ENSO-adjusted. 

So using this quote in the context of the RSS dataset which is neither a surface dataset nor ENSO-adjusted is thus doubly-wrong. The mendacity runs deep with this one.

Last edited 20 days ago by John Phillips
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 7, 2021 9:54 am

Yes you predicted that in November 2017, an amazing prediction since the paper by Mears and Wentz describing the adjustments was submitted in its final form in June 2017 and was first received in October 2016.

Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 5:38 pm

RSS certainly isn’t using physics to derive their alleged temperature series.
Mears should be ashamed forever.

SAMURAI
September 1, 2021 11:30 pm

A relatively rare (happens about 17% of the time) back-to-back La Niña cycle will be in effect from around November of this year, so by the middle of next year, UAH6.0 will likely hit -0.3C, which will substantially extend this new pause.

Moreover, both the Pacific and Atlantic are near (or already in) their respective 30-year cool cycles, which will eventually cause the pause to start from around 1996, so by 2026, the pause could be in its 30th year…

We’ll see soon enough.

rbabcock
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 2, 2021 5:20 am

The Australian BOM does a great job on tracking ENSO sea temperatures. La Niña is definitely forming
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean&pacific=Sea-sub%E2%80%93surface

Eastern ENSO regions are following suit comment image

Thomas
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 2, 2021 8:12 am

I hope not! We’re in drought conditions in California and Las Niñas don’t help that situation. We had a lot of water, but the Democrats threw it all away.

SAMURAI
Reply to  Thomas
September 2, 2021 9:39 am

Thomas-san:

There likely won’t be an El Niño cycle until 2023, so California will suffer terrible drought conditions for at least another year.

I really feel sorry for the people of California, especially the farmers who will have a very tough time of it.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 2, 2021 10:02 am

The Grapes of Wrath 2

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 2, 2021 11:21 am

Saying this, that CA “will suffer” through years of drought, as if it is a foregone conclusion, is not the sort of thing a cautious climate realist would declare in unequivocal terms.
Simply put, the uncertainty is large and nothing is a foregone conclusion.
Not a foregone conclusion re whether or not there will be a la nina, and not a foregone conclusion that if there is or is not one, it means years more of drought.

This is what alarmists do, give voice to certainty when there is none, and intone gravely on an uncertain future.
We should not emulate them.
Just sayin’.

Last edited 20 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 2, 2021 12:31 pm

If the climate and its associated weather events were amenable to statistical analysis then all the climate models would converge and would match actual observation.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 2, 2021 9:06 pm

It’s been raining quite a bit in Arizona. Arizona is close to California. Some of that rain may slip across the border.

Thomas
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 3, 2021 8:52 am

Ohio goziamas, Samuria-sama,

We can store more than five years of water in California. The problem is the Democrats emptied the reservoirs, based on the theory that fish are more important than people.

CalJim
Reply to  Thomas
September 4, 2021 12:32 pm

Fish are more important than shipping almonds to China. Almonds are one of the major crops using water in the naturally driest part of CA and most of them are exported to China. I prefer to eat wild Salmon and truly hate any more extinctions of truly beautiful and tasty species. Fishermen are as important as almond farmers.

Reply to  Thomas
September 7, 2021 10:33 am

I think they rated humans as more important since releases are made for flood control and hydroelectric power generation. For example, the Oroville hydroelectric plant was shut down last month because the level dropped too low. In spring 2019 Oroville was close to its full level with 47″ of rain that season, the next season only 19″ and therefore significantly lower level, this season so far 16″ and record low levels. It’ll be a couple of months before significant rain can be expected, hopefully a more normal season will top up the reservoir.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Thomas
September 2, 2021 11:14 am

While there is some correlation between wet years in southern CA and el nino events, the relationship is not perfect, and certainly does not make anything like a rule.
Neutral ENSO years are all over the map re rainfall in CA as a whole.
And la nino years have been dry or wet.
I for one am not wringing my hands…yet.
Or ever, really.
60 million people should not be living in a place that is largely a desert.comment image
Fun with Statistics: El Niño and California Rainfall | NOAA Climate.gov

Last edited 20 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 2, 2021 11:17 am

Many do not click links, so here is a quote:
Can the past give us a hint at what the future may hold?Not surprisingly, the two regions have historically seen different impacts from El Niño. In fact, the relationship in the San Joaquin Valley can best be described as “kinda messy.” There are El Niño “years” with lighter amounts of rain… La Niña years with heavy rain.. and neutral years all over the place (1). Yes, if we took an average of all the El Niño, La Niña and Neutral years together, we would discover that, on average, El Niño years meant higher rainfall totals. But from looking at Figure 2b, we know that there is a lot of variability in the historical record. Thus, we can conclude that while El Niño might in general lead to higher rainfall totals, there certainly is no 100% guarantee.
This holds true for areas that show even stronger relationships between SST anomaly and rainfall, such as southern California (Figure 2a). One interesting aspect is that rainfall possibilities during neutral and El Niño are somewhat similar. In other words, the onset of El Niño might not lead to a strong increase of wintertime precipitation compared to Neutral years. Neutral and El Niño years in this region both show a large range of possible outcomes, which includes some pretty wet years (2). 
It is only during La Niña (when the tropical Pacific is colder-than-average) when the number of wetter years diminishes.  So in this region, a declaration of El Niño versus ENSO-neutral does not historically mean a large change in rainfall probabilities. In either case, there is a wide range of possible rainfall totals, including above-average accumulations.
From the historical record alone, it is clear that there never is a 100% confidence in an above-average, below-average or average rainfall forecast, even if there is an El Niño or La Niña. The best we can say is that there is a tilt in the odds in one direction or another.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 2, 2021 9:08 pm

“Many do not click links, so here is a quote”

I don’t usually click links, unless an interesting excerpt is provided which causes me to want to know more.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 2, 2021 11:28 am

Correction: Population of CA is not 60 million, it is slightly under 40 million last time I checked.
Sorry for the typo.
The point remains the same.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 2, 2021 6:56 pm

It is roughly the inverse of New Zealand: 5 million people, 40 million sheep.

Thomas
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 3, 2021 9:04 am

That seems about correct. 40 million Democrats and two or three Republicans.

Thomas
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 3, 2021 8:57 am

Thanks Nicholas. I have noticed that in the past decades there have been some strong El Niño years that were not wet in Southern California. I think we get most of our water from the Colorado River and from aqueducts that bring water from Northern California, so rain in Souther California might not do us much good.

If 60 million people want to live in a near desert, they better build some good water storage and delivery systems, and not throw away the water that they do manage to store.

Last edited 19 days ago by Thomas
Reply to  Thomas
September 2, 2021 5:54 pm

We’re in drought conditions in California”

Welcome to California, an arid state.
a) It’s normal for California to be in drought.
b) Make sure everyone you know, knows it was the democrats that drained the reservoirs.
c) The first places that should have their water shut off are the State Legislature Offices and buildings.
d) Second, shut down every well on every golf course and shopping malls. They can not pay retail prices for water from the main water supply.
e) Make sure that the first faucets, toilets and sprinklers turned off are those of the California legislators.

Reply to  SAMURAI
September 2, 2021 5:45 pm

Welcome news SAMURAI!

I’m going to miss the warmth, but I am far more eager to see the climate scam cartel destroyed.
I have warm clothes and a wood stove.

With luck, those fools thinking it will be warmer forever with mild winters, will be thoroughly cold knee deep in snow while installing solar arrays and wind towers.

Tony
September 1, 2021 11:39 pm

Gee- start with a conclusion-no warming, the find the right formula, and right data set that confirms it. That’s real sciency- no wonder WUWT commands so much respect in scientific circles.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tony
September 2, 2021 12:11 am

Tony, even the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR5 acknowledged the pause. The recent Super El Nino broke it. The ongoing temperature decreases should affect surface and atmospheric temperature trends. But, who knows?

Thomas
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 2, 2021 8:16 am

Back in 2005 the U.S. constructed the Climate Reference Network (US CRN), a series of hundreds of state-of-the-art weather stations located in pristine locations in the lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii. As of last month it shows slight cooling for 10 years and 4 months. So whatever people in the U.S. think they are feeling, it ain’t country-wide warming.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Thomas
September 2, 2021 9:43 am

The way I read the temperature graph thirty years of warming ended about 2004-5 and a pause began which, if it matches the pauses that began about 1915 and 1945, should last until about 2035.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Tony
September 2, 2021 12:20 am

Must be clueless Pause-denying Troll Day. Lucky us.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 2, 2021 6:08 pm

Using the same alleged cherry picking complaints as before.
Odds are they are the same crying trollops as before.
Didn’t work then.
Won’t work, now.

Willem Jan Goossen
Reply to  Tony
September 2, 2021 12:28 am

How leftist, always accuse your opponent of your own sins/acts/crimes etc….

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Willem Jan Goossen
September 2, 2021 10:30 am

It’s “Projection,” seeing others through the lens of ones own Shadow.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Tony
September 2, 2021 12:29 am

Or you could start with the latest temperature point in a data set and work backwards to the nearest point which gives you a line of zero warming. If the end were really nigh you’d get a few short periods of no warming, but in general they’d be insignificant.

Over six years is not insignificant.

JF

Bellman
Reply to  Julian Flood
September 2, 2021 2:52 am

How do you calculate the significance of this period?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
September 2, 2021 8:00 am

You take a look at the graph showing no trend in global warming for about seven years and you ask how likely it is that there will be such long periods without warming so often in the temperature record, given that anthropogenic global warming is supposed to be catastrophic.

In other words, unlike paid totalitarians such as Bellman, we merely report the data and allow people the liberty to draw their own conclusions.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 9:13 am

No, the question I’m asking is how you determine the pause is statistically significant. In order to do that you need to define what a pause is, determine the null hypothesis, then determine a test that will fairly tell you how likely the observed trend would have happened if the null hypothesis had been true.

Given the uncertainty of you pause is much larger than any past warming I find it difficult that you have done this exercise.

If you had, you could show your work rather than resorting to ad hominems.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Bellman
September 2, 2021 11:35 am

Haha!
This is rich…a warmista with thin skin!
“Ouchy…that ad hominem hurtzed me!”
What next, thin skinned lawyers?
Boo frickin hoo.
Put on your big boy panties if you are gonna take the side of those who want to drive us all into poverty.

Last edited 20 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Bellman
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 2, 2021 11:58 am

Not upset at all by Monckton’s silly insults. I’m sure no intelligent person here really thinks I’m a paid totalitarian. I just like to occasionally highlight when he resorts to them as a substitute for actually justifying his claims.

Reply to  Bellman
September 2, 2021 6:18 pm

You just admitted you are trolling.

I just like to occasionally highlight when he resorts to them as a substitute for actually justifying his claims.”

Bellman
Reply to  ATheoK
September 3, 2021 3:44 am

Maybe I didn’t word that as carefully asI should have. “as a substitute” is refering to Monckton’s usage, not mine.

Lrp
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2021 6:31 am

Dude, you’re not a casual observer; you have skin in the game, because you’re only appearing on temperature related issue to dismiss anything that contradicts the warming hypothesis. Whether you’re a totalitarian or not is just a consequence of that position.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 2, 2021 6:17 pm

What next, thin skinned lawyers?”

Lots of lawyers are thin skinned.
Once you find their weakness, you can play them like shrieking harps. Usually it includes their egocentricity and/or narcissism.

paul courtney
Reply to  Bellman
September 2, 2021 11:36 am

Mr. Bellman: Your question assumes that Monckton is the one trying to prove something. It is the model folks who are trying to prove something with their models. If Monckton’s data falsifies the models, he has met his burden and doesn’t need to show statistical significance, he only needs to show that models predict heat which is not happening. Nice try, but your effort to muddy the water was successful (per Joe Biden definition).

Bellman
Reply to  paul courtney
September 2, 2021 1:41 pm

I assume Monckton isn’t trying to prove his claims, with good reason. But if he wants skeptics to accept his claim that there’s been no warming for exactly 6 years and 8 months, the onus is on him to provide some justification.

Reply to  Bellman
September 2, 2021 6:19 pm

 the onus is on him to provide”

Lazy, too.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
September 2, 2021 7:01 pm

He has provided the evidence it is self-evident from the graph and regression line.

Now, the question of its practical significance is the important question. However, he leaves that up to the readers to reach their own conclusions.

Lrp
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2021 6:35 am

But he has just shown you there hasn’t been any accelerated warming for six years and eight months.

Bellman
Reply to  Lrp
September 3, 2021 1:25 pm

Who said anything about accelerated warming? I’m questioning whether there is any significant evidence for a change in the long term trend over the last few years. My conclusion is there is insufficient evidence for either a slow down or a speed up.

All Monckton has shown is that for a specific period the best fit for the variable data is for no change, but that is not at all the same as showing evidence that this represents a change in the rate of warming since 1979, rather than the effect of starting the trend just before a massive El Niño and ending on a LA Niña. Choosing different periods, either longer or shorter you can find best fits that show a faster rate of warming, but again that is a long way from showing evidence that there has been an acceleration in warming.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 2, 2021 12:22 pm

How do you determine statistical significance in a system that is not amenable to statistical analysis? If the climate were amenable to statistical analysis then all climate models would converge and their output would match observations. The models don’t converge. There isn’t even any agreement on what the inputs to the models should be!

About the only statistically significant thing about climate is its dependence on the earth’s orbit and its axial tilt – i.e. seasons. Even then it’s impossible to forecast what the summer, fall, winter, and spring weather will be in detail next year because it is not amenable to statistical analysis. Too many unknowns and too many unknown unknowns.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 2, 2021 1:46 pm

If you think the UAH data is “not amenable to statistical analysis” then how can you claim there is any sort of pause. The “pause” only exists as a concept because of some sort of statistical analysis, just not a very good one. This has nothing to do with models converging, it’s not about predicting the future, it’s just about the idea of claiming something happened in the recent past with no attempt to test if this is likely to have happened just by chance.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2021 6:12 am

You asked abut “statistical significance”, not the use of statistics to analyze the data.

“Statistical significance” implies the past influenced the present or that the present influences the future. Next years climate is *NOT* determined by this years climate therefore there is no statistical significance that can be assigned to current climate.

This becomes even more important when trying to use the GAT as a proxy for climate. The GAT is *not* climate, it doesn’t even imply anything about climate. The GAT can’t tell you if maximum temps are going up or going down. Same for minimum temps.

CM is merely determining the current trend for the GAT. Whether the slope of that trend line stays the same, goes down, or goes up is determined by physical processes that the GAT simply doesn’t even know about, let alone handle properly.

Nothing about the climate “happens by chance”. It happens because of the totality of the physical processes that the climate scientists simply don’t understand as a coherent whole and don’t handle properly in their models. If the climate scientists did understand the whole Earth system then you could assign some statistical significance to the model outputs. The models *would* all converge and would match observations.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 3, 2021 1:45 pm

I’m not sure you understand what statistical significance means. It’s just an indication that an observed result is unlikely to have happened in the absence of a cause, i.e. if the null-hypothesis were true.

If, for example I said that temperatures were rising over a specific period, and could show that the best linear fit over that period had a positive fit, it would only be statistically significant if you could show a trend of that magnitude was unlikely to have happened if there was no actual warming.

In the case of the pause, I might interpret that as a claim that warming had slowed down, and then try to show it is unlikely that you would have seen a zero trend if warming was continuing at the same rate.

Your probably right to say none of this happens by chance – what is random in the universe – but there are clearly variations month to month some of which can be explained others might just as well be chance. But when you talk about the rate of change in temperature you are only talking about that change compared with time. Any other changes are noise to that signal and create uncertainty in the best fit trend, regardless of what caused them. The “pause” period starts on a high point ends on a low point – the calculations for the trend doesn’t take into account whether they are part of the ongoing trend, or just random fluctuations, hence the large uncertainty. What would the trend look like if that big spike hadn’t happened in 2016, or if there had been a spike in 2021?

Of course, if you do know what is causing some of this variation, you can always try to factor them out. I suspect if you factored out the ENSO conditions over the last 7 years, the trend would look quite different.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2021 3:47 pm

I’m not sure you understand what statistical significance means. It’s just an indication that an observed result is unlikely to have happened in the absence of a cause, i.e. if the null-hypothesis were true.”

GAT is not an observed result. It is a calculated result. Therefore how can it have a cause?

The GAT trend line is just that, a trend line. It is no more predictive than the climate models projecting a linear trend line into the future and calling it a prediction.

“If, for example I said that temperatures were rising over a specific period”

The GAT is not a temperature. It is a calculated metric. There is no way to know what causes it to go up or down. Are max temps going up? Are min temps going up? Are both going up? Since you don’t know how can you say what the cause is?

“In the case of the pause, I might interpret that as a claim that warming had slowed down, and then try to show it is unlikely that you would have seen a zero trend if warming was continuing at the same rate.”

The GAT doesn’t tell you what is changing. It could be that max temps are falling at the same rate minimum temps are rising. Is min temps going up considered to be “warming” of the Earth?

but there are clearly variations month to month some of which can be explained others might just as well be chance”

Nope. The thermodynamic system we call Earth doesn’t operate based on chance, it is a macro system that doesn’t have to be analyzed using quantum physics. Those variations occur because of the physics of the system. If those physics were known completely and could be modeled then all the models would converge and would match with observations. What *is* chance is if the models actually get the predicted temperature correct!

But when you talk about the rate of change in temperature you are only talking about that change compared with time. Any other changes are noise to that signal and create uncertainty in the best fit trend, regardless of what caused them.”

There aren’t any changes to the signal that don’t have time as part of the change. That’s why the temperature profile is not stationary.
.”The “pause” period starts on a high point ends on a low point – the calculations for the trend doesn’t take into account whether they are part of the ongoing trend, or just random fluctuations”

The pause period starts with today and goes backward – by design. And, again, there are no RANDOM fluctuations. There are *natural* fluctuations but they are *not* random, they follow the rules of physics. If our measurement systems are not sufficient to identify what is causing the fluctuations then *that* is the issue. The uncertainty comes from our ability to measure, it can’t just be written off as “random change”.

Of course, if you do know what is causing some of this variation, you can always try to factor them out”

Factoring out the causes of variation is done to suit an agenda, and that agenda is not science.



Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 3, 2021 5:47 pm

GAT is not an observed result. It is a calculated result. Therefore how can it have a cause?

The “observed result” in this case is the pause. It has been observed by Monckton that if he starts a trend from January 2015 it is not positive.

There is no way to know what causes it to go up or down

I’m not interested at this point what causes it to go up and down. The objective is to establish if it is going up or down or staying flat.

Nope. The thermodynamic system we call Earth doesn’t operate based on chance, it is a macro system that doesn’t have to be analyzed using quantum physics.

I said “might just as well be considered to be chance”. not that they were caused by chance.

The pause period starts with today and goes backward – by design.

You still haven’t explained what that means, or why you think it’s relevant. I’ll remind you again of how Monckton describes the pause:

As always, the Pause is calculated as the longest period ending in the present that shows no warming trend, …

Note how he describes it ending in the present. How do you both start and end in the present?

And, again, there are no RANDOM fluctuations. There are *natural* fluctuations but they are *not* random, they follow the rules of physics.

And again you are agreeing with what I said.

The uncertainty comes from our ability to measure, it can’t just be written off as “random change”.

But the issue is, regardless of what caused the fluctuations, they are not part of the linear trend. We are interested in how global anomalies change linearly over time, not how they change as a result of ENSO conditions.

I’m old enough to remember the 2016 El Niño and the numerous WUWT articles pointing out how in no way should you base a linear trend ending on it, and call it global warming. If your argument is that we have to ignore ENSO effects and just look at any linear trend as real, with no uncertainties, will you say the same when the net big El Niño arrives?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2021 4:37 am

The “observed result” in this case is the pause. It has been observed by Monckton that if he starts a trend from January 2015 it is not positive.”

You didn’t address the issue! How do you determine the CAUSE from an average of mid-range values that totally obscure what the actual temperature profiles are?

I’m not interested at this point what causes it to go up and down. The objective is to establish if it is going up or down or staying flat”

*YOU* are the one that brought up the subject of “CAUSE”. –“It’s just an indication that an observed result is unlikely to have happened in the absence of a cause”–

If the trend line can’t help you identify a CAUSE then of what use is it in the physical world we live in?

“I said “might just as well be considered to be chance”. not that they were caused by chance.”

ROFL!!! Nice dance move. But we all know what you were trying to imply.

You still haven’t explained what that means, or why you think it’s relevant. I’ll remind you again of how Monckton describes the pause:”

It means that claims (including yours) that CM is cherry-picking dates is incorrect. He cherry-picked nothing.

“Note how he describes it ending in the present. How do you both start and end in the present?”

The trend line ends in the present. The data analysis *starts* in the present. Get it?

And again you are agreeing with what I said.”

Really? You didn’t say —“the calculations for the trend doesn’t take into account whether they are part of the ongoing trend, or just random fluctuations”–?

You can run but you can’t hide.

But the issue is, regardless of what caused the fluctuations, they are not part of the linear trend”

If you can’t account for the natural variation then how do you know the trend line means anything? You are, as usual, trying to dismiss uncertainty as a factor in anything to do with temperature measurement.

We are interested in how global anomalies change linearly over time, not how they change as a result of ENSO conditions.”

  1. Who says global anomalies change linearly?
  2. If you ignore ENSO then you are just guessing that the trend line actually means something.

I’m old enough to remember the 2016 El Niño and the numerous WUWT articles pointing out how in no way should you base a linear trend ending on it, and call it global warming. If your argument is that we have to ignore ENSO effects and just look at any linear trend as real, with no uncertainties, will you say the same when the net big El Niño arrives?”

You are the one that just said we should ignore ENSO, not me. And it is you that are trying to ignore the uncertainties by saying we can ignore natural fluctuations and just concentrate on the trend line.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 4, 2021 2:30 pm

And it is you that are trying to ignore the uncertainties by saying we can ignore natural fluctuations and just concentrate on the trend line.

That is the exact opposite of what I am trying to say, and if that is what you understand me to mean I obviously haven’t been making myself clear.

A trend line is simply the best linear fit for the data. You need to know the uncertainties (the standard error) to see how meaningful it is, in particular to see if it is statistically significant. And the uncertainty in the trend depends on how much natural fluctuation there is around the line along with the sample size.

It’s very much my point that you cannot ignore the uncertainties in any linear regression, hence my claim that there is no evidence that the trend of the last 6 years and 8 months is significantly different to the trend up to that point.

Last edited 18 days ago by Bellman
Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 4, 2021 2:44 pm

It means that claims (including yours) that CM is cherry-picking dates is incorrect. He cherry-picked nothing.

and

The trend line ends in the present. The data analysis *starts* in the present. Get it?

You still refuse to explain exactly how you think Monckton determines the start date for each pause. I’ve shown how you can determine it by searching from the earliest date forward. You could also start at the most recent date and work backwards, though this would be a little less efficient. But whichever direction you do the search, you will get the same answer.

I fail to see how the direction of the search can avoid the charge of cherry-picking, when the whole point is to find the exact month that will give you the longest possible non-positive trend.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2021 7:29 pm

“You still refuse to explain exactly how you think Monckton determines the start date for each pause”

The difference in temp at time -t1 and time t0 to start with. Then the difference between time -t2 and time t0. And so on. Why is this so opaque to you?

”You could also start at the most recent date and work backwards, though this would be a little less efficient”

Now you have it. No cherry picking the start date.

If you can’t see that working from the present backward in time is NOT cherrypicking the start point then I’m sure you are being willfully ignorant.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 5, 2021 8:00 am

Firstly, why are you looking at the difference between temperatures? That’s not how the trend is calculated.

Secondly, what’s opaque is that you are leaving out the critical bit, where you have to say how you know when you’ve found the start of the pause.

As I said you can search backwards, but you will find the same start month as you do searching forward. If one is cherry picking so is the other. And as the only objective is to find the start point that gives you the longest “pause”, I find it difficult to see how it isn’t picking a cherry.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 5, 2021 8:34 am

Wow! If there is no difference in temperatures then you have no slope – your trend line will be horizontal – i.e. a pause.

You work backwards till your line no longer has a zero slope.

You are *still* missing the point. Picking a start date in the past *is* cherry-picking. Starting the analysis in the present and working backwards is *NOT* cherry-picking.

If there is a pause then that *is* significant and finding where it started is not cherry picking. How can you be so dense?

If you have lost something during the day do you go all the way back to where you left your house and then search forward? Or do you start looking backwards from where you currently are?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 5, 2021 1:10 pm

Your previous comment was suggesting you simply compared the difference between a single month and the current one. That is not how you determine the trend. You don’t just look at the difference between the start and finish points, you have to take into account all points in between.

But the main issue is where you say “you work backwards till your line no longer has a zero slope.” Thus is what I suspect a lot of people who go on about working backwards think the Monckton pause is derived, and it simply isn’t so. There would be no guarantee that this would give you the longest pause as Monckton requires.

With the current date, you get a positive slope going back just 2 months, starting in June 2021. In fact a trend equivalent to over 10°C / decade! So maybe you would object to a trend of just 3 months. However go back just over three years and the trend is positive, starting from June 2018. Do you end the search there? No, because you know it will turn negative again.

So you go back through more positive trends , then through a couple of years of negative trends, until you reach December 2014 which is again positive. And there you stop and declare the pause now starts January 2015.

But why did you stop at that points? Only because you can see that there are not going to be any more negative trends however far back you go.

The point is you do not stop as soon as you find the first positive trend, you stop once you have found the last negative trend, or if you search forward, the first negative trend. Either way you get the same result, and if one is cherry picking so is the other.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 5, 2021 4:42 pm

Your previous comment was suggesting you simply compared the difference between a single month and the current one. That is not how you determine the trend. You don’t just look at the difference between the start and finish points, you have to take into account all points in between.”

Did you read this before you posted it? How do you determine the slope of a line segment? y1-y2/delta-x

You then step backward till you find a point where the slope is not zero. Again, what is so hard abut this? You are trying to find the starting point where the trend is zero. You are *NOT* cherry-picking the start point as you claimed! You are *finding* the start point.

“With the current date, you get a positive slope going back just 2 months, starting in June 2021”

Now you are trying to claim that the pause isn’t real? That it ended in June, 2021?

Take it up with CM.



Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 6, 2021 10:55 am

Did you read Lord Monckton’s article. He is not looking for the slope between two points but “the least-squares linear-regression trend”. The formula for that slope is not y1-y2/delta-x. It’s

\frac{n\sum x_iy_i - \sum x_i\sum y_i}{n \sum x_i^2 - (\sum x_i)^2}

There’s nothing hard to understand, in the idea of stepping back until you find the first positive trend – it’s just not how Monckton does it. Your method does not find the longest possible non-positive trend, which is what Monckton wants. Your method will actually find the shortest pause, stopping as soon as the trend becomes positive.

Now you are trying to claim that the pause isn’t real?

I’ve been saying it’s not “real” all along, or at least it’s not something with any statistical merit at present. But I’m not the one saying the pause only started in July 2021, you are if you insist you stop at the first positive trend working backwards.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 6, 2021 4:03 pm

Jeeeshhh! Bellman, if you step backwards and recalculate the trend line and the slope of the trend line is something other than zero (i.e. y1 = y2) then you have either warming or cooling. If the slope is zero then you have neither warming or cooling.

You have *not* succeeded in moving the issue away from the fact that you claimed CM was cherry-picking his start data. HE DIDN’T.

The point is to find the length of the CURRENT PAUSE. Not the longest pause we have recorded. Why do you keep trying to shift the issue to something else?

The pause did not start in July, 2021. The CURRENT PAUSE has extended through July, 2021. Who knows when it will end?

Stop trying to rationalize your claim that CM is cherry picking data. He isn’t. You haven’t convinced anyone that he is.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 6, 2021 4:54 pm

“(i.e. y1 = y2)”

What do you mean by y1 and y2, they would normally refer to specific data points, initially you said they were the temperature at t1 and t2. do you now accept that the trend is derived from least square linear regression and not simply comparing the temperature of one month to another?

The pause did not start in July, 2021.

Of course Monckton doesn’t start his pause in July, but that’s where your method would put it – remember you say you search backwards and stop as soon as you get a positive trend.

The point is to find the length of the CURRENT PAUSE“.

The point is to find the start date that will give you the longest non-positive trend to the current date. Saying you want to find the length of the CURRENT PAUSE is just begging the question as the pause is defined by the selected date. In case you haven’t noticed this is a different start month each time.

Why do you keep trying to shift the issue to something else?

All I want at this point is for you to show me you understand how the start date is selected using a backward search, and then to explain why it matters if you search forward or backwards.

Last edited 16 days ago by Bellman
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 7, 2021 10:23 am

“What do you mean by y1 and y2, they would normally refer to specific data points”

Are you kidding? What’s the issue of the discussion? Think about it!

“The point is to find the start date that will give you the longest non-positive trend to the current date.”

You said CM was cherry-picking the start date. Are you changing your claim?

“Saying you want to find the length of the CURRENT PAUSE is just begging the question as the pause is defined by the selected date”

Guess not. You don’t *select* a start date when you are working backwards!

“xplain why it matters if you search forward or backwards.”

What’s the use? You aren’t going to change your mind that CM is cherry-picking the start date of the pause. All you are doing is trying to rationalize that assertion to yourself. I’ve explained this over and over and you won’t listen.

*FINDING* a start date is not the same as *PICKING* a start date.

Last edited 15 days ago by Tim Gorman
Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 7, 2021 1:09 pm

You don’t *select* a start date when you are working backwards!

Really? What’s the point of searching backwards if you don’t use it to select the start date?

*FINDING* a start date is not the same as *PICKING* a start date.

How do you pick the ripest cherry if you don’t find it first? Monckton finds the start point that gives him the desired result, the longest pause, and then picks it as his start point.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 8, 2021 4:04 am

You are making yourself look like a fool. Stop it. Finding the start of a pause is not the same thing as “cherry-picking” a start date to make a trend line say what you want.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 8, 2021 12:03 pm

You keep making a distinction between finding” and “picking” that I don’t understand. Monckton wants the trend line to say there is no warming so finds the earliest month that give him that, and then picks that month for the current report. Next month he’ll find another month if that gives a longer pause.

Someone else could use the same method to find the longest period over a certain value. For example I find that the trend since January 2011 to present is 0.4°C / decade, a warming rate three times faster than the overall trend. If I say we have had rapid warming for 10 years 8 months, have I cherry-picked the start date, or did I find it by working backwards?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 8, 2021 4:38 pm

CM doesn’t “pick” that date, the data does it for him, he just finds it. I don’t know how to be any more clear.

Are you complaining that he has found a pause at all?

Of course someone else could look for something else. That’s a red herring argumentative fallacy.

The cherry picking comes in when someone *picks* a start date to make the trend line come out like they want. They don’t “find” that date, they “pick” it. It’s like eliminating the 30’s from all baselines so temps today won’t look cooler than the 30’s.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 8, 2021 6:05 pm

OK, I think the problem with this discussion may just be that you just don’t understand what cherry-picking means. You seem to think that “pick” in the phrase cherry-pick means something like manipulate or destroy evidence, when what it actually means is to selectively choose the data that suits your argument, and ignore contradictory data.

What you describe as picking a start date to make the trend line come out like you want is, exactly what Monckton is doing. He wants a flat trend line so he picks the date that gives him a flat trend line. He wants the longest possible pause so he chooses the earliest start date that gives him a flat trend.

The point of my looking for something else, was to illustrate how easy it is to cherry pick data to show a contradictory argument. But it also illustrates how meaningless the pause is – the trend of the last 10 years 8 months is almost 3 times faster than the long term UAH trend, despite over 60% of it occuring during this supposed pause.

Lrp
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2021 6:39 am

The “pause” is a matter of observations and not of statistics.

Bellman
Reply to  Lrp
September 3, 2021 3:21 pm

What do you think least-square linear regression means?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2021 3:50 pm

Linear regression is used for humans to more easily see what is happening. That does not mean it is the truth in any way, shape, or form. It is not predictive at all. And calling the extension of a trend line a “projection” is hand waving and guessing. If you don’t know all the inputs and how they interact then your “projections” are what you call “random chance”.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 3, 2021 5:25 pm

So, are you saying Monckton’s pause is “not the truth in any way, shape, or form”?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 4, 2021 4:11 am

Trend lines based on GAT are not the truth in any way, shape, or form. The GAT is not a proxy for climate. There is no place you can go to observe it. You can’t even tell what is causing the GAT to go up or down.

All CM has done is used the climate alarmists own data to show the folly of their models and predictions. And that *is* the truth.

Reply to  Bellman
September 2, 2021 6:10 pm

Replay all of the explanations given during the previous pause.
You were around then.

It’s not a surprise, unless you expect the same troll tactics to work this time.

Bellman
Reply to  ATheoK
September 3, 2021 1:49 pm

The explanations were spurious then, but at least you had 15+ years to work with. Now we have less than half that time and the explanations are twice as bad.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 2:50 pm

It is clear from the way you calculate your so called pause that there is likely to one every time there is a large el-nino event. Such events cause the temperature to rise by by about half a degrees for about a year. Which combined with a steady rise of 0.14 degrees per decade means that it will be some time before temperatures reach the peak of the el-nino year.

You can do the maths very simply. Take a linear temperature increase of 0.14 degrees per year, add some random noise plus occasional super el-nino events and you find Monckton pauses lasting 10 years or so. But none are statistically significant or physically meaningful being just an artefact of random numbers.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 2, 2021 3:16 pm

Are you claiming the UAH data are random numbers, Izaak the Idiot?

And yet CO2 continues to rise…

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 2, 2021 3:53 pm

No. There is a linear trend in the UAH data of 0.14 degrees per decade on top of which are random fluctuations (i.e. weather) along with a super el-nino event once every while.

The long term UAH trend continues to rise along with CO2 levels. But it is a noisy signal.

Davidf
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 2, 2021 6:21 pm

No longer. Reduced to 0.13, last month. Now, Im just a simple fella, but if a 4 decade trend, has reduced – oh, and the previous data is invariant – then it would seem to me that the most recent data must be on a reducing trend, at least in the short term.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Davidf
September 2, 2021 8:01 pm

David,
short term trends can easily be driven by noise and randomness. And people tend to see patterns in randomness that don’t exist (eg constellations). The real question is whether or not such a trend is physically and statistically significant or if it is just noise on top of a relatively small signal.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 2, 2021 9:17 pm

“short term trends can easily be driven by noise and randomness”

Yes, like the shortterm trend from 1979 to the present.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 2, 2021 9:41 pm

If it’s a relatively small signal why do you and your tribe get your knickers in a twist over it?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 2, 2021 9:35 pm

Not if you subtract out the baseline that goes back to pre-man made CO2 levels, per the scientific null hypothesis. If you do, noise or no noise, there is no signal from CO2 that is distinguishable from zero. Arrhenius (1896) was a conjecture that has failed at levels of CO2 above 280ppm.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 3, 2021 11:27 am

“The long term UAH trend continues to rise along with CO2 levels.”

Horsefeathers!

You are leaving out the part about how the UAH data set begins at a point in time which is well known to be very close to exactly the lowest point in a multidecadal downward trend in GAT.

We could also correlate the trend since then with the price of adult diapers.
Which of course come in handy for all the supposedly educated adults who are wetting their pants over a tiny increase in temp on a planet in an ice age!
A planet which is well known to have cyclical variations in temp!

A graph of temp for a single day will look very worrisome if at 4:00 PM one concludes that given the current trend, within a couple of days in will be 180°F.

How many times do we have to have this discussion wherein you pretend that 1979 was the very beginning of time, and/or conveniently forget that alteration of the historical data sets are the only reason anyone believes these lies?

HADCRUT NH unadjusted and UAH.png
Last edited 19 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 4, 2021 5:39 am

I like that graph. I’m going to put it in my collection.

That’s what tacking the UAH satellite chart onto the end of the Hansen 1999, U.S. surface temperature chart would also look like.

Here’s the Hansen 1999 U.S. surface temperature chart:

comment image

So, a combination of the UAH chart and the HadCrut3 chart shows the same thing a combination of the U.S. surface temperature chart and UAH would show, and both combinations show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

This means there is no unprecedented warming today, as the alarmists claim, and no unprecedented warming today means that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere. So minor that we don’t need to worry about it or regulate it. We can move on.

John Phillips
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 4, 2021 6:50 am

WUWT US.JPG
Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Phillips
September 5, 2021 5:13 am

A bogus, bastardized, instrument-era Hockey Stick chart is your reply?

Yes, it is. That would be because this is the only thing you can show as “evidence” that it’s warmer today than in the recent past.

All the actual temperature readings from around the world, show a completely different temperature profile where it is just as warm back in the past as it is now, just like the U.S. regional temperature chart shows, and you ignore all of them in favor of a bastardized record.

Spare me the computer-generated Hockey Stick propaganda. I do not accept that they represent the real temperature profile of the Earth. You shouldn’t either.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 5, 2021 5:35 am

Neither graph is bogus. The difference is that the graph you posted does not address known biases whereas the one John posted does.

Additionally it is not the hockey-stick graph or a variation of it. It is a graph of the temperature in the United States from 1880 to 2020. The hockey stick graph (and variants) are in regards to the global temperature over a 1000+ year period.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 4, 2021 7:30 am

Tom, remember the discussion we had at least 4x now regarding your U.S. Temperature graph? Don’t you think it would be more ethical if you informed the WUWT audience about the details regarding that graph?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
September 5, 2021 5:15 am

“Tom, remember the discussion we had at least 4x now regarding your U.S. Temperature graph? Don’t you think it would be more ethical if you informed the WUWT audience about the details regarding that graph?”

I don’t recall what you are referring to, and I don’t appreciate being called unethical just because I don’t agree with you version of reality.

Make your argument again.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 5, 2021 5:25 am

The graph is contaminated with non-climate biases including but not limited to station moves, instrument changes, time-of-observation changes, etc. The graph John Phillips posted above has those biases addressed.

Last edited 18 days ago by bdgwx
John Phillips
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 5, 2021 5:48 am

It even has it’s own entry in GISTEMP FAQ.

Q. Why are the US mean temperatures in the Hansen 1999 paper so different from later figures?

A. In the Hansen et al. (1999) paper the GISS analysis was based on GHCN data alone; in the meantime, the group working at NOAA/NCEI had taken a closer look at the US data, an investigation that resulted in substantial modifications compensating for station moves, procedural changes, etc. These corrected data were made available as “adjusted USHCN” data.

The adjustments and their effects are described here, with a graph showing the effect of each of the five individual adjustments here. These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990.

They had no significant impact on the global mean. About half of that increase was due to information obtained about station moves (mostly from cities to airports where conditions were generally cooler), the other half from changes in the time of observation (mostly as a consequence of a concerted effort to transition to a uniform time of observation for a whole network of stations). After 1999, GISS replaced the unadjusted USHCN reports by the adjusted reports, and reported on the differences this made in Hansen et al. (2001).

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q215

John Phillips
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 4, 2021 6:41 am

Fun with Graphs! Why have you plotted the (obsolete) NH HADCRUT 3 dataset versus UAH Global?

Why have you not noted that UAH and HADCRUT have different baselines? This accounts for 100% of your supposed uptick. Here’s what happens if you continue the surface dataset to compare with the satellite.

WUWT FWG 1.JPG
Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Phillips
September 5, 2021 5:16 am

“Fun with Graphs! Why have you plotted the (obsolete) NH HADCRUT 3 dataset versus UAH Global?”

Probably because it is the least bastardized version of the temperature record. That would be my guess.

John Phillips
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 4, 2021 6:47 am

And if we use the up to date global HADCRUT dataset and align the baselines we get the graph below.

The start of the satellite era was in fact a local maximum, the exact opposite of the claim.

You’re welcome.

WUWT FWG II.JPG
Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Phillips
September 5, 2021 5:18 am

“And if we use the up to date global HADCRUT dataset and align the baselines we get the graph below.”

Yeah, that’s the problem. The latest version is the most bastardized version.

It’s all alarmist climate change propaganda in the guise of a global temperature chart. The alarmists made it all up in a computer and expect gullible people to believe it’s real.

Obviously, they have had some success at their deceptions.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 5, 2021 5:29 am

The graph John posted here uses HadCRUTv4. HadCRUTv5 is the latest version.

John Phillips
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 5, 2021 11:30 am

If you plot two anomalies with different baselines, inviting viewers to think one is a continuation of the other you are being deliberately deceptive or you don’t have clue one.

This is like comparing the height of two people while one is standing on a box. It really is that dumb.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  John Phillips
September 5, 2021 12:33 pm

/me points at Mickey Mann…

Tim Gorman
Reply to  John Phillips
September 5, 2021 4:06 pm

You nailed it!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  John Phillips
September 5, 2021 8:22 am

Ok, so you think you have shown how GAT has increased. Now show us the regional graphs that make up this composite. The sum of the parts must make up the whole. Let’s see how much of the earth has warmed a lot and how much has cooled a lot and how they combine to make up the GAT!

Show the temperature graphs for each continent and then break it down even further. Those of us who have played with this don’t find the sweltering regional temps that offset those with no or little cooling.

Maybe you’ll have better luck.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 3, 2021 6:13 am

They aren’t “random numbers”. But that doesn’t mean there is any statistical significance that can be assigned to them.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Julian Flood
September 2, 2021 9:44 am

And 18+ years is truly epic.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Tony
September 2, 2021 12:35 am

I don’t see any claims made as to the significance (if any) of a 6.5 year pause.
The data shows no trend since 2015, end of story.

John Phillips
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 6, 2021 2:59 am

The data shows a zero trend +- 0.8C / decade since 2015.

Pretty meaningless, really.

Pariah Dog
Reply to  Tony
September 2, 2021 12:36 am

Gee, start with a conclusion – warming caused by man, then find the right formula, and the right data set that confirms it. That’s real sciencey too, and that’s the IPCC in a nutshell.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Pariah Dog
September 2, 2021 9:40 pm

…. and, as I mentioned above, that’s an uncanny definition of Karl et al., (2015).

Sara
Reply to  Tony
September 2, 2021 5:05 am

OK, Tony, if you can’t understand seasonal changes, e.g., spring warms things up, summer increases heat levels, autumn cools things off, winter increases cold/decreases heat, you aren’t living on the same planet I live on. And in the middle section of the planet (the equatorial zone), it is a not-quite steady warm state. I say “not quite”, because they also get cold spells in the tropics, sometimes snow appears on those mountains, too.

It all has to do with where the planet is in its annual orbital run around the Sun, along with the polar wobble and how much daylight each half gets. We’re more likely to have longer winters and heavy snows, as well as floods and major storms, than anything else, but that’s just weather. Try to understand the difference between weather –> short term, and climate –> long term. Early snow in the north (see the Austrian Alps episode) is a shift in the WEATHER.

Would you like fries with your misconception?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Tony
September 2, 2021 5:27 am

Tony, like so many who are handsomely paid to troll these threads, simply cannot come to terms with the straightforward notion that one may calculate a trend over any desired period of interest. The fact that such a trend, now approaching seven years in length, now exists is a matter of straightforward calculation. One understands how little the climate Communists like the fact that for nearly seven years (or more than seven years on the HadCRUT4 dataset) there has been no global warming, but – however much the mere fact disagrees with the Party Line, it is a fact. Get over it. If there is a second small la Nina this winter, the period without any warming at all will lengthen.

Sara
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 6:44 am

Just want to let you know, Lord Monckton, than in my area (NE IL USA), the weather abruptly changed from a pleasant cool summer with very little rain (bad sign) up to August 10th, to a hot, humid, and very obnoxious typical August heat wave (weather, not climate). Then someone, some unseen Weather God (Uranus?) hit a switch and we got the cooler air back on Labor Day (9/1/21) and the humidities also dropped. The switch coincides with Ida making a right=hand turn and going east, and now there is a weather front moving in my general direction from the northwest. Cooler air, rain (needed!), etc., the rain volume this year has been poor to bad.

While I welcome the cooler weather, I would like more rain. But this only applies to my area, not to the entire state, so I don’t know how it is down in the cornfields south of me. Too little rain reduces the sugar content in high fructose corn, which is a high-value commodity with traders. Ditto soybeans and wheat, as well as other grains. This is something that some people simply do not understand.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2021 7:58 am

Who’d be a rancher? One can never depend on the weather. You get sun when you want rain and vice versa. The Western U.S badly needs a whole lot of rain. In general, warmer weather should also mean wetter weather, which is why it is so inconsistent of the climate Communists to say that global warming is increasing both droughts (which are actually declining globally) and floods (which show no particular change).

Sara
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 8:59 am

Yes, the Greenbeaners do not make any sense. I see flooding in China and Europe and they holler “Drought!” and I wonder if they are on the same planet I’m on. (Mentally, definitely not. 😉 )
I still think having to spend some quality time on an island near Antarctica might bring them down to the Real World, but it’s only an idea on my part. They seem to not have any connection to or cognizance of natural forces, over which they have no control.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 11:47 am

Anyone paying close attention can see the obvious…they make it up as they go.
Nothing the warmista whine about is even consistent from day to day, week to week, and certainly not year to year, and most of it makes no sense even if it was consistently stated.
Likewise, as noted, very little of anything they say comports even slightly with factual information.

I reckon it takes a good long while to work out the kinks in any new religion.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 2, 2021 7:05 pm

Nothing the warmista whine about is even consistent from day to day, …

Yes, liars have to be quick on their feet.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Tony
September 2, 2021 9:26 pm

Gee- start with a conclusion-no warming, the find the right formula, and right data set that confirms it.”

Are you talking about Karl et al (2015)?

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

Hubert
September 2, 2021 12:20 am

you have to consider AMO cycle (article published 2 days before) , then you could understand why the pause lengthens for 20 years and should end with the cold phase of AMO …next years …before the temperature will drop a little bit …like 1970 years …

Sara
Reply to  Hubert
September 2, 2021 6:45 am

It’s already dropped around here, Hubert.

fretslider
September 2, 2021 12:24 am

Even now griff won’t pause for thought

If it’s cooler this year – and it definitely is – it’s obvious there is no warming

Sara
Reply to  fretslider
September 2, 2021 6:46 am

Yeah, if it isn’t cooler, then why did we get only two weeks of ‘hot summer’ where I am (back to cool now) and why did it snow in the Austrian Alps in August, never mind all those other oddball weather events?

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2021 8:41 pm

Oooh. Oooh. Choose me. Because warming causes cooling, dry weather, wet weather, more clouds, less clouds, stable weather and unstable weather, and the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Last edited 20 days ago by Forrest Gardener
Arjan Duiker
September 2, 2021 12:39 am

“how can global warming be worse than you thought given that it is a whole lot less than you predicted?”
That’s an excellent and another very intelligent question of Lord Monckton! It puts a smile on my face despite the rather cold and dull whether today here in the Netherlands.

September 2, 2021 1:08 am

The trend on the entire UAH dataset since December 1978, a period of 42 years 9 months, is equivalent to only 1.35 C°/century, even though the data began shortly after the naturally-occurring Great Pacific Shift of 1976 that is responsible for much of the warming over most of the period.

Matthew Sykes
September 2, 2021 1:17 am

Still warming though isnt it. If it dropped half a degree for ten years I might be convinced warming had stopped.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 2, 2021 3:59 am

The pause deniers are out in force today.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bill Toland
September 2, 2021 5:41 am

Somebody’s hired a bus for the event!

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Richard Page
September 2, 2021 7:55 am

A nasty, diesel-fumed, CO2-emitting bus. At least it wasn’t a private jet.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Bill Toland
September 2, 2021 7:01 am

There is no pause, it has been cooling for 8000 years!

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 2, 2021 7:54 am

No, it has been warming for 8000-9000 years since the end of the Little Ice Age.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 9:52 pm

I think Matthew is referring to the Holocene Climatic optimum at 8,000 years ago:

Screen Shot 2021-09-02 at 9.50.38 PM.png
Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 11:47 pm

But cooling since the last anbd much warmer interglacial! 🙂

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 3, 2021 11:39 am

Here are a few different views over a few timescales, from different proxy measurements:

CO2 and Temp, paleo.PNG
Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 11:48 pm

And you are a couple of thousand years out there Christopher:
comment image 8000 BC was the peak temp

Reply to  Bill Toland
September 2, 2021 6:28 pm

Not one original thought from the lot of them. They’re all rehashing their fears from the previous pause.

Likely they hope RSS will add another false increase of temperature.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 2, 2021 5:33 am

Mr Sykes says it is “still warming”. No, it isn’t. For almost seven years (UAH) or more than seven years (HadCRUT4) there has been no warming. So, for the time being, global warming has stopped, and it may be that the pause will continue for some months or even years. Or it may cease. But such Pauses, which tend to follow exceptionally large el Ninos, are an indication that the long-run trend – also shown in the head posting – is about a third to a quarter of the 0.34 K/century equivalent medium-term warming predicted in IPCC (1990), particularly when one allows for the fact that not all warming is necessarily anthropogenic.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 5:52 am

Are you ever going to state the uncertainty in the claim that there’s been no warming for almost 7 years? As I hint below, it’s strange that almost 7 years of “no warming” results in an increase in the overall rate of warming.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
September 2, 2021 7:50 am

Bellman should read some of the previous posts in this series, in which I have shown the error-bars in the HadCRUT4 temperature series, with the trends thereupon. Taking proper account of the error-bars actually lengthens the pause, because we cannot say with certainty that there has been any warming in the zone of uncertainty, which is longer than the period shown in the Pause graphs.

And no, it is not strange that while temperatures are above the longer-term trend the longer-term trend will increase a little. Welcome to elementary statistics. The longer-term trend is fully and fairly shown in the head posting, and it is a great deal less than the trend originally predicted by IPCC in 1990.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 11:41 am

+100

John Phillips
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 12:43 pm

” The longer-term trend is fully and fairly shown in the head posting, and it is a great deal less than the trend originally predicted by IPCC in 1990.

Actually no, there were several trends projected in AR1 and His Lordship is almost certainly referring (because he nearly always does) to just one – Scenario A. This had an associated warming trend in early decades of 0.29C/decade. Not really ‘3x observed’.
 
However IPCC (1990) presented four scenarios (A-D). Scenario A had the most warming. To be sure the IPCC did describe the assumptions about forcings behind Scenario A as ‘Business as Usual’ meaning no emission controls (amongst many other things), but as predicting how forcings will develop is not in their competence, they developed the 4 scenarios in an attempt to bracket possible futures. Scenario A was the most extreme in terms of forcings and and as it turned out it incorrectly predicted a far greater rate of forcing, and hence of temperature change, than actually occurred. In reality greenhouse gas concentrations evolved somewhere between Scenarios B and C. From the report:

“under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls rates of increase in global mean temperature of 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) “.

So the observed UAH warming rate of 0.13C/decade lies between Scenario B and Scenario C. The IPCC may not be prescient in terms of future forcings, but properly assessed, their 1990 temperature projections turn out to be have been pretty skillful.
  

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  John Phillips
September 2, 2021 1:35 pm

Based on crude and bogus computer models?

Accidents happen.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 2, 2021 8:56 pm

And, assumptions that didn’t happen! Hansen assumed major volcanic eruptions for the low-growth scenarios, to make it look like “draconian” reductions in anthropogenic CO2 would have wonderful results, and then didn’t apply the effects of the hypothetical eruptions to the “Business as usual” scenario, to exaggerate the difference between the scenarios.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 2:03 pm

We are talking about the UAH data, and the uncertainty in the trend, not in the temperature. Depending on how you calculate it, you might say something like the trend since January 2015 is 0 ± 7°C / century, for a 95% confidence interval.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
September 2, 2021 2:29 pm

Shhhhhhhh!

Bellman is lecturing on statistics again.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
September 3, 2021 7:01 am

Which means you have absolutely no idea what is going to happen in the future. We’ll just have to wait till the future gets here to see what happens.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
September 2, 2021 1:32 pm

Oh the irony.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 6:59 am

Oh come on, its been cooling for 8000 years, warming for 150, warming for 50, not warming for 7 and cooling for 2.

We all know how this works Christopher, and saying ‘it is still warming’ is not an alarmist statement, nor a statement about CO2. Its just a statement of fact given a certain time frame.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 2, 2021 7:53 am

No, it isn’t still warming. There has been no trend for about seven years. That has the effect of increasing the longer-run warming trend by a very little, but there has still been no warming for almost seven years (or more than seven years, on the HadCRUT4 dataset).

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 11:53 pm

And if you update to July 2021 you get the warming bac:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/

Like I said, you can get warming and cooling where ever you want just by picking a start date, so you need a reasonable time frame.

Is 7 years a reasonable time frame, is 8000?

So we need to chose, so how about a generation, 30 years, does that sound reasonable to you?

In that time frame it is still warming.

Sara
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 2, 2021 6:49 am

Matthew, do you know the real difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE?

I doubt that you do, kiddo. There is no such thing as climate or weather stasis on this planet.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2021 7:00 am

There is no such thing as climate or weather stasis on this planet.”

So you deny there is a pause then? 🙂

Anyway, nice patronism, do you specialise in that just use it on special occasions?

“do you know the real difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE”

Yeah, its called time.

Sara
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 2, 2021 1:19 pm

Your answer doesn’t make any sense. A “pause” is not the same as stasis, which is a steady state, stagnation, also a state of equilibrium. And dropping in the word “time” in regard to weather versus climate is just plain lazy on your part.

And no, I have NEVER denied any pause of any kind, other than my cat’s paws getting into things that are MINE!

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2021 11:56 pm

stasis
/ˈsteɪsɪs,ˈstasɪs/

nounFORMAL•TECHNICAL

  1. 1.
  2. a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium.

Dont be silly, stasis and pause are the same.

And dropping in the word “time” in regard to weather versus climate is just plain lazy ” Oh come on, if you get rainy weather for long enough you have a rainy climate. Of course time is the difference between weather and climate!



Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2021 6:50 pm

Sara:
You have somehow mixed up what M. Sykes has been posting.

Sykes accurately stated that global temperatures have been declining for 8,000 years.

Here is the last 10,000 years. With the CO₂ levels charted too.

1) Caveat: Most of the resolution size is much larger than modern temperature series.
2) Caveat 2: Even with the spurious temperature datasets tacked on to the end of this graph, temperatures are far below temperatures 8,000 years ago.

Every honest temperature graphic going back to or before the last maximum glaciation shows that Earth is getting cooler. In spite of the super powers alarmist attribute to CO₂ our future looks darn cold.

You are chastising the wrong commenter.

As far as Lord Monckton, I assume he misread Sykes’ comment.

vinther-temperature-and-epica-co2.png
Reply to  ATheoK
September 2, 2021 6:51 pm

Here is the last 740,000 years:

Past_740_kyrs_Dome-Concordia_ice_core_temperature_reconstructions.png
Dave Fair
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 2, 2021 9:52 am

Well, Matthew, the Pause lasted over 18 years. Cognitive dissonance, much?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 2, 2021 12:02 pm

“If it dropped half a degree for ten years I might be convinced warming had stopped.”

Wait a second…you seem to be saying that even if you knew that it was not warming for ten solid years in a row, you would only maybe grudgingly acknowledge that reality?
Congrats, you do not have a rational bone in your body or scientific thought in your head.

If warmistas stopped making stuff up, moving the goalposts, and altering historical data sets, I might be convinced they had bought an speck of integrity.
On second thought, no…no…there is zero chance that pack of lying liars could ever convince me of anything.

Last edited 20 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 2, 2021 11:59 pm

Lets get this straight, I think CO2 is good for the planet, mild warming and a big increase in plant growth.

OK, got that?

Right, down to the temp trend. To me, I see a steady increasing trend in that graph. For me to see otherwise I would need to see it cool by half a degree for ten years.

DO you understand?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 3, 2021 11:50 am

I look at stock charts all day long.
It is amazing how a cyclical pattern can hide and suddenly emerge when even a slightly longer view is taken.
If it cools in the coming years, we could be back at values seen in the 1970s or lower, and the sine pattern can easily become evident before ten years have passed.
Sorry I misunderstood your position.
I can see I spoke rashly and was out of line, and I regret it, and apologize.

In any case, I have a different mindset when it comes to data analysis: I look at it as it happens and see what is in front of me, and do my very best to never decide anything ahead of time…before the evidence is available.

Last edited 19 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 2, 2021 9:06 pm

If it dropped half a degree for ten years I might be convinced warming had stopped.

If you were intellectually honest, you would have to admit that it had been cooling for a decade, and based on that interval of time, an extrapolation would suggest that warming had stopped for the near-term. However, there are no long-terms guarantees of the behavior.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 3, 2021 12:02 am

From the UAH data above? If you pick exactly 2010 as the start point you can claim it has not warmed for 10 years, but only a fool would do that. The fact is there is an upward trend. I need to see a solid period of temperature fall to be convinced it is over.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 2, 2021 9:25 pm

“Still warming though isnt it. If it dropped half a degree for ten years I might be convinced warming had stopped.”

Well, according to the UAH satellite chart, the temperatures have dropped by half a degree since the “hottest year evah!” of 2016. We are currently sitting at 0.5C cooler than 2016.

Where’s all this warming the alarmists are always talking about? Aren’t we putting more CO2 in the atmosphere? Yet it is getting cooler. I don’t get it. Maybe that means CO2 doesn’t have much to do with our temperatures.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 3, 2021 12:00 am

since the “hottest year evah!” of 2016″ which isnt ten years.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 4, 2021 5:42 am

Good comback.

Give it time.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 5, 2021 3:07 am

Yep, time indeed. As I said, we get ten years of solid lower temps I will say the warming has paused.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 5, 2021 5:20 am

I’ll look forward to it.

John Phillips
September 2, 2021 1:21 am

Furthermore, over the 18 years 1984-2001 a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover was responsible for most of the period radiative forcing (Pinker et al. 2005) and hence global warming.
 
In case anyone believes Pinker et al supports Lord Monckton’s claims of global brightening causing global warming, it has been pointed out, not least by Dr Pinker herself, that they do not.
 
1 Viscount Monckton attempts to directly link the change in surface solar radiation to a change in temperature. He states:

“What, then, caused the third period of warming? Most of that third and most recent period of rapid warming fell within the satellite era, and the satellites confirmed measurements from ground stations showing a considerable, and naturally-occurring, global brightening from 1983-2001 (Pinker et al., 2005).”

This statement in effect equates temperature change with surface solar radiation change which, as noted in points 2 and 3 above, is only one input into a complex climate process. Also, it is not necessarily the case that global brightening is naturally-occurring; it can be caused by anthropogenic aerosols or changes in the atmospheric moisture content as well as clouds, possibly affected by increasing CO2 levels.

2 Viscount Monckton states the following about the data used in our study:
Allowing for the fact that Dr. Pinker’s result depended in part on the datasets of outgoing radiative flux from the ERBE satellite that had not been corrected at that time for orbital decay, it is possible to infer a net increase in surface radiative flux amounting to 0.106 W m-2 year-1 over the period, compared with the 0.16 W
m-2 year-1 found by Dr. Pinker.”

In the Pinker et al. (2005) study, no use is made of outgoing radiative flux from ERBE observations; observations from ERBE are not used at all. The observations used are from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP).

https://web.archive.org/web/20130926035034/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/24/rachel-pinker-on-moncktons-tes/
 

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  John Phillips
September 2, 2021 5:45 am

Mr Phillips does not realize that, since Pinker et al. did not use ERBE, the radiative forcing arising from the global brightening over the 18 years 1994-2001 was 0.16 Watts per square meter per year, compared with only 0.038 Watts per square meter per year from all anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings.

Mr Phillips also does not realize (as Dr Pinker did not) that the radiative forcing concept is designed to place the temperature effects of various climatic influences on an approximately equal equal footing. It follows that, since the 0.16 W/m^2/yr from naturally-occurring solar brightening exceeded the 0.038 W/m^2/yr total annual anthropogenic forcing more than fourfold, the solar brightening was the chief cause of the global warming over that 18-year period. Whether or not Ms. Pinker had herself drawn that conclusion from her paper, it was a conclusion legitimately drawn.

Ms Pinker tried to maintain that the solar brightening was anthropogenic. But then it went and reversed itself, as it does quite naturally.

In general, adherents of the Party Line are prone to exaggerate the influence of anthropogenic aerosol forcing in whichever direction is convenient. Ms Pinker chooses to maintain that we were responsible for a decrease in aerosols from 1984-2001, leading to the brightening. IPCC chooses to maintain that there has been an increase in aerosols, leading to a dimming and consequently a negative forcing, for reducing the total observed forcing when compared with the observed temperature change appears – quite falsely – to increase climate sensitivity.

If Mr Phillips were not so lavishly paid to peddle the Party Line, he would me more critical of those who, like Ms Pinker, were not aware of the implications that might legitimately be drawn from their own findings.

John Phillips
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
September 2, 2021 7:47 am

Now I am confused. At first His lordship cites Pinker 2005 in support of his global warming from global brightening claim, now he is saying she got it all wrong. Which is it?
 
Well, you can probably guess. Dr Pinker correctly points out -as she has had to do on several occasions – that His Lordship is guilty of serially misrepresenting her work. Smart people learn from their mistakes. He claims that a change in solar surface irradiance due to cloud cover changes – which he derives from Pinker – is directly comparable to other causes of radiative imbalance. It is not. Dr Pinker could not be clearer:

“The CO2 “radiative forcing” value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting refers to the impact on the Earth’s Radiative balance. The numbers that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at their face value
 
Radiative forcing is a measure of a net global energy imbalance, the surface SW radiation flux will always be a lot higher than the corresponding RF change as the former does not include the full picture of global brightening, including such factors as aerosols and cloud. Oranges will always be oranges and apples will always be apples. Global brightening never did and never could cause much global warming. This has been spelt out by Dr Pinker on at least three occasions and yet His Lordship continues wrongly to cite her work.
 
 
With regard to Mr. Monckton’s use of the work of Pinker et al., (2005) he is totally misinterpreting the physics. In addition to ignoring the long-wavelength (infrared; LW) radiation, he also ignores the non-radiative terms involved in the surface energy budget: sensible and latent heat fluxes (SH, LH) and heat storage. While a change in solar insolation at the surface alters how much solar heating of the surface occurs, changes in LW, LH and SH fluxes modify how much surface cooling occurs. There is no observational evidence or plausible physical justification to assume these cooling mechanisms remained constant during the period of apparent “global” brightening (which is questionable in its own right at the global scale). By Monckton’s logic, surface temperature variability is a simple linear function of variability in surface insolation. While this logic would make climate prediction much simpler than it is, life on Earth would be quite miserable. Not a place I’d want to live..
 
Dr Norman Loeb
Source.

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Phillips
September 2, 2021 10:02 am

So, increased SW doesn’t provide additional energy to the Earth’s thermodynamic system? Whodda thunk?

John Phillips
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 2, 2021 12:24 pm

Nobody has ever made that claim.

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Phillips
September 2, 2021 1:46 pm

Doesn’t “There is no observational evidence or plausible physical justification to assume these cooling mechanisms remained constant during the period of apparent “global” brightening (which is questionable in its own right at the global scale).” count?

September 2, 2021 1:26 am

I would suggest a renewal of attention on GHCNM, the source of the vast majority of land surface temperature data for global products. This database is in major decline, it no longer has updates for rainfall, Tmax and Tmin, it is unstable, it has clearly invalid QC adjustments for recent decades, and some of its homogenised versions are clearly wrong, many with excessive cooling of the past. It also has insufficient data for many countries in recent years.

Confirmation bias and fear of contradicting the Party Line both apply, if temperatures fall or pause massive efforts will be expended to “fix” the problem, if they continue to rise then nothing will happen.

Steen Rasmussen
September 2, 2021 1:54 am

Finally 3 scientists have calculated the value of “ECS” to 0,5K including the watervapor forcing. Water vapor accounts for 29.4K, CO2 3.3K and CH4+N2O 0.3K of the total 33K greenhouse gas warming. It means that an increase of CO2 from present 412ppm to 1600ppm will take approximate 800 years. (and this team is not the only – several other papers get the same result ECS is 0.5K)
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12

Last edited 21 days ago by Steen Rasmussen
angech
Reply to  Steen Rasmussen
September 2, 2021 2:26 am

Chris , 2 months every month is far to slow, though better than nothing. It will take 6 years to get to 18 years. Can you not speed it up a little bit?
Please.