The New Pause lengthens to 7 years 11 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The New Pause, notwithstanding the much-publicized heatwaves in Britain and some other countries, has lengthened by another month to 7 years 11 months. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH satellite lower-troposphere monthly global mean temperature anomalies has settled into a steady state that may yet be perturbed either by another la Niña later this year, which would lengthen the New Pause still further or, in the next year or two, a new el Niño event, which would shorten it or – if the spike were big enough – extinguish it altogether.

As the indefatigable Eric Worrall reported here a couple of weeks back, the Forces of Darkness are becoming concerned at the lengthening of the New Pause. They are beginning to write the nervous little pieces that they wrote when the previous Great Pause began to become significant.

I well remember the first time I drew the attention of the U.S. House of Representatives to the fact that, at that time (in 2007 or thereby), as now, there had been no global warming for seven or eight years: in fact, there had been a small cooling. The news that there had been cooling during that period caused consternation among the “Democrats”.

Against me was Tom Karl, then in charge of the clattering train at NOAA. He was as consternated as his fellow “Democrats” at the news that there had been no global warming for so long a time. He furiously tried to undermine the result by saying that it had not been proper for me to average the temperature anomalies of four distinct global-temperature datasets, one of which was his own. I countered that it made no difference either way, since all four of the datasets I had used, including that of NOAA, had shown a global cooling for the previous seven or eight years.

Eventually Rep. Joe Barton (R: TX), then chairman of the Republican minority caucus on the House energy committee, intervened and ordered both sides to write to the committee justifying their stances. For me, that was easy: I sent individual graphs of the four datasets on which I had relied, including that of NOAA, which all showed cooling. Tom Karl was splutteringly furious, but the data are the data. “It is what it is,” as Roy Spencer puts it.

At the end of that Great Pause, in November 2015, Senator Cruz (R: TX) showed our HadCRUT4 graph to the Senate, again provoking fury from the “Democrats”. At that time the inconvenient and unpredicted truth was there had been no global warming for 18 years 9 months.

If, therefore, the new Pause continues to lengthen satisfactorily, and if – as now seems certain – the crippling consequences of the economic hara-kiri that the West has allowed certain hostile alien powers to inveigle it into perpetrating become all too painfully apparent even to the “Democrat” electorate, the fact underlying these long Pauses will become known not just to the open-minded few but to all, whether the climate Communists like it or not.

That fact is that the rate of global warming predicted by Hansen in 1988 and then by IPCC in 1990 is simply not occurring. Nothing like. In 1990 IPCC had confidently predicted warming equivalent to 0.34 K/decade in the period to 2030. Well, we are now already well into 2022, almost a third of a century after that over-excited prediction, and the observed warming was not the 1.1 K that ought to have occurred by now but just 0.45 K:

Thus, IPCC had predicted almost two and a half times the warming that has actually occurred in the third of a century since its prediction. Yet, as Dr Roy Spencer has just brilliantly pointed out at his website, the anthropogenic forcings are continuing to follow a pattern that would lead to a forcing equivalent to a doubling of CO2 concentration by the end of the 21st century, approximately in line with Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5, and not the deliberately extreme 8.5.

Yet the currently-predicted warming for a forcing equivalent to that from doubled CO2, in the CMIP6 models (Zelinka et al. 2020), is 4 K/century equivalent, or 0.4 K/decade equivalent, up a little on the 0.34 K/decade equivalent predicted in IPCC (1990).

It has long been obvious from the temperature record that the rate of global warming is nothing like what was originally predicted: and yet the predicted warming in the models has officially increased. The decadal equivalent of the currently-predicted centennial rate of warming is now about thrice the observed decadal rate of warming.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. There is a reason why the models continue to predict about thrice as much global warming as is actually happening. But I trust that regular readers will not need me to tell them what that reason is.

Meanwhile, the temperature in England rose above 40 Cº one blissful day in July. Since I am used to living in hot countries, I astonished the assembled company by wearing a tweed jacket throughout the day. I’d normally have worn my heavy leather biker jacket, the best protection against hot weather, but I’m away from home just now. But I was the only person present who did not complain of the heat, for I was comfortably warm, not unbearably hot. I leave it to the reader to work out the sound science behind how that works.

Try it next time the weather is well hot, and you will see what I mean. I was once in Texas, where it was a little hot. I was wearing my biker jacket. Daisy the barmaid was baffled. I told her to put her hand between me and the jacket. She did so and was astonished at how cool it was. Us Brits have the neatest chat-up lines.

Of course, the unspeakable BBC blubbed about how dozens of people were going to be killed by the heat (in a good cold spell the weather can wipe out tens of thousands at a time).

But there is a growing impatience among the electorate at the one-sidedness of the global-warming argument, and at the failure of the BBC or any of the major channels to give both sides of the story. We are going to dump the BBC from our viewing altogether next month, as millions of others have already done. No more license fee for us.

Unfortunately, the relentless propaganda, and the increasingly vicious silencing of all who would otherwise have dared to speak out, have had their effect. I have recently discovered that neither the British intelligence services nor the Cabinet Office have the slightest idea that the global warming nonsense is not merely peddled assiduously by the Communist traffic-light tendency – the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds. It originated in the disinformation directorate of the KGB. But today’s spooks have no idea. One of them, who did not realize that my hearing is sharp, was overheard to say that I was “very Right-wing.” Moi? Zut alors!

Though the anti-social media giants will continue their campaign of outright Communist censorship, by a growing variety of samizdat methods the truth will emerge. Not long now, I think. The climate nonsense has almost run its course. It was all very well when there was little cost to it. But now that households all over the West are going bankrupt trying to pay their power bills and blackouts are only averted by panic measures, the people won’t stand for climate Communism much longer. In Britain on one recent day, the national grid paid more than $11,000 per MWh (or getting on for 400 times good old coal-fired power at $30 per MWh) to keep the lights on in London. And all this insanity on the basis of an elementary error of physics.

4.9 64 votes
Article Rating
289 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AlanJ
August 2, 2022 2:08 pm

Right on schedule! Mr. Monckton how would you say the current pause compares to past ones?

comment image

Dave Fair
Reply to  AlanJ
August 2, 2022 2:44 pm

Your point, Alan? Why not 1997 to 2015?

AlanJ
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 2, 2022 5:21 pm

No point! I’m not a pauseologist, I just love hearing the experts explain all the fascinating climate patterns that arise from an endless series of pauses.

Dave Fair
Reply to  AlanJ
August 2, 2022 6:09 pm

Experts? Its a trivial and endless game of playing with numbers to “prove something.” About the only one that means anything is the almost 19-year Great Pause that exceeded CliSciFi’s self-identified 17 years of no increase to falsify their climate models. Although the early 20th Century warming is assiduously avoided by warmunists.

Anyway, the minor warming we’ve experienced since the Little Ice Age has been a boon to humanity. Add in the extra kick of CO2 greening, and I’ll vote for more CO2. China and India agree with me. I’ll go with them rather than Let’s Go Brandon.

G Mawer
Reply to  AlanJ
August 2, 2022 7:08 pm

Exactly. The term pause infers a stop, even if short term. What I see is going up then down then up then down and finally back up to where it was before, and before and before……granted within bounds considered to be fairly stable.

Loydo
Reply to  AlanJ
August 2, 2022 10:29 pm

The correct term is Pausist. Pauseologist sounds like there is science involved.

AlanJ
Reply to  Loydo
August 3, 2022 5:46 am

That is snappier, and you’re right, it’s more of an art than a science.

paul courtney
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 11:33 am

Mr. J: Looks like your a Loydoist. It’s an art, too!

beng135
Reply to  Loydo
August 4, 2022 10:49 am

How ’bout usefulist idiotist in your case?

Steve Case
Reply to  AlanJ
August 2, 2022 2:48 pm

You could have put up the Escalator from Skeptical Science. It’s the real deal, but the bottom line is, does it really paint a picture of catastrophic disaster?

   The Weather outside is beautiful,
   And the bratwurst on the Barbie is delightful
   But if you’ll hold me tight
   Maybe the Brewers will win tonight.

That won’t win a Grammy for lyrics, but it does paint a picture of a beautiful summer evening here in Milwaukee to sit on the deck and listen to the ball game with a bowl of peanuts in the shell.

Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
August 2, 2022 2:58 pm

I forgot to add the link to the Skeptical Science Escalator:
comment image

AlanJ
Reply to  Steve Case
August 2, 2022 5:23 pm

That’s terrific. How could anyone think global warming is real when you see all those wonderful pauses.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 8:41 am

I think you’re so taken by the animation you overlooked the Y axis. Worrying over a fraction of a degree of warming in half a century…

Reply to  AlanJ
August 4, 2022 7:30 am

The anonymous Alan “J” has not understood the purport of the long pauses in the temperature record. They clearly illustrate the increasingly glaring departure of the actual rate of warming from the far greater predicted rate.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 4, 2022 8:24 am

Speaking of the predicted warming rate…if you don’t mind jump down towards the bottom and let’s discuss that IPCC FAR prediction from 1990. It appears you are still misrepresenting the IPCC and I want to make sure you understand what the IPCC actually predicted.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steve Case
August 2, 2022 6:11 pm

Notice they don’t compare their trend line with UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models?

Reply to  Steve Case
August 2, 2022 6:13 pm

Does Skeptical Science ever mention or show the adjustments that NASA and NOAA do with the raw temperature data? The early 1900s they adjust downward, and the more current temperatures they increase – adjust up.

Steve Case
Reply to  JON P PETERSON
August 2, 2022 7:16 pm

Does Skeptical Science ever mention or show the adjustments that NASA and NOAA do with the raw temperature data?
______________________________________

I don’t visit Skeptical Science much anymore, as they banned me from posting December 2012. Here’s the adjustment count from NASA so far in2022:

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
291 243 252 401 346 261

Source

Jerry Gorline
Reply to  Steve Case
August 3, 2022 5:31 am

Yeah SkS is a lot like Camelot, it’s a silly place. They used model simulations to predict no cooling in a Maunder Minimum like environment (Rahmstorf, 2010). I argued that the model they were using assumed low solar impact, high climate sensitivity to CO2 and 3C amplification from H2O, ensuring a predetermined outcome, I.e. circular reasoning. Rahmstorf was not a happy modeler. Let’s not go there, it’s a silly place.

AlanJ
Reply to  JON P PETERSON
August 3, 2022 4:30 am

It looks like the adjustments bring the early 1900s upward and do very little to the more current temperatures:

comment image

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 5:39 am

Fraud.

AlanJ
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 3, 2022 5:46 am

Why?

Mark Whitney
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 7:31 am

Not so here, according to GISS.

hansen-giss-1940-1980.jpg
bdgwx
Reply to  Mark Whitney
August 3, 2022 7:59 am

Mark, in 1980 and 1987 GISS was not addressing the time-of-observation bias or instrument/shelter change bias. By 2007 those biases (and others) had been addressed (at least partially). But it wasn’t until 2009 that changepoint biases in general were finally addressed in a more comprehensive way via pairwise homogenization.

AlanJ
Reply to  bdgwx
August 3, 2022 8:40 am

It’s not even just methodological improvements, it’s also that NASA was using fewer stations and had poorer global coverage in earlier versions of the dataset.

comment image

In 1981 they had the data from MCDW (about 1000 stations globally), and in 1987 they incorporated data from NCAR and the NOAA, more than doubling the number of stations in use. Today they’re using the entire GHCNv4 network.

But apart from this, NASA has a tool on their website that allows you to compare historic versions of GISTEMP, and you can see that the difference between these three versions is not particularly profound:

comment image

bdgwx
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 8:59 am

Yeah. Absolutely. I believe GISTEMP is using over 28,000 stations now and more are getting added to the GHCN repository every month. I know record digitization projects are still ongoing as well so observation from years and even decades past are still being uploaded. It is similar with ocean observations as well. More and more observations are continuously being digitized and uploaded to the ERSST repository.

Solomon Green
Reply to  bdgwx
August 4, 2022 5:15 am

I wonder if bdgwx has bothered to read

“The report, published by The Heartland Institute, was compiled via satellite and in-person survey visits to NOAA weather stations that contribute to the “official” land temperature data in the United States. The research shows that 96% of these stations are corrupted by localized effects of urbanization – producing heat-bias because of their close proximity to asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects. Placing temperature stations in such locations violates NOAA’s own published standards (see section 3.1 at this link), and strongly undermines the legitimacy and the magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends in the United States.

“With a 96 percent warm-bias in U.S. temperature measurements, it is impossible to use any statistical methods to derive an accurate climate trend for the U.S.” said Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Anthony Watts, the director of the study. “Data from the stations that have not been corrupted by faulty placement show a rate of warming in the United States reduced by almost half compared to all stations.”

Which can be still be found at the top of this website.

bdgwx
Reply to  Solomon Green
August 4, 2022 6:51 am

Localized effects of urbanization is not a bias. It is a real effect. The bias is when you take that observation and assume it provides an adequate proxy for rural areas. The same is true in reverse. When you take a rural observation and assume it provides an adequate proxy for urban areas you introduce a negative bias. Remember, urbanization is a real effect and any temperature increase it causes should be include in a spatial average. What shouldn’t be included in a spatial average are any biases. To assess the possibility of a UHI bias (not UHI effect) on a spatial average USCRN was created. What it says is that if anything nClimDiv/USHCN may actually be underestimating the warming [Hausfather et al. 2016]. Note that nClimDiv/USHCN has a warming trend of +0.46 F/decade vs USCRN of +0.61 F/decade during their overlap period [link].

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
August 3, 2022 11:34 am

More fraud.

AlanJ
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 3, 2022 11:57 am

Your replies contribute nothing to the conversation. Try a bit more.

Last edited 4 months ago by AlanJ
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 2:16 pm

Stop whining.

Mark Whitney
Reply to  bdgwx
August 4, 2022 6:33 am

Yeah, right. More guesses euphemistically called adjustments. I think Anthony’s work gives the lie to those tweaks.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mark Whitney
August 4, 2022 7:42 am

Do you think making adjustments for the time-of-observation bias, instrument/shelter change bias, station move bias, etc. are tantamount to lying? What about the adjustments UAH makes? Does it make Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy liars as well?

barry
Reply to  Mark Whitney
August 5, 2022 6:36 pm

Anthony’s peer-reviewed work on US weather station siting biases suggested that there were biases in min/max temperatures over time, but that there was little difference between well and poorly sited stations for mean temperatures in the full US climate record.

The opposite-signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well-sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes. For 30 year trends based on time-of-observation corrections, differences across classes were less than 0.05°C/decade, and the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best-sited stations was less than 0.01°C/decade.”

Fall et al 2011

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146

Matt Kiro
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 2:38 pm

Now superimpose that graph over the temperature range the world experiences every year. 1.4C is less than you would feel going from the sunlight to the shade of a tree.

bdgwx
Reply to  JON P PETERSON
August 3, 2022 8:04 am

JON P PETERSON said: “The early 1900s they adjust downward,”

The myth that never dies. It’s actually the opposite. The net effect of adjustments actually results in an upward revision of the global average temperature in the first half of the 1900s. The biggest reason for this is due to the fact that bucket measurements are biased low. There was a fairly rapid transition during WWII away from bucket measurements. The end result is that the overall warming trend is actually lower with adjustments as compared to the raw observations.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Meab
Reply to  bdgwx
August 3, 2022 12:56 pm

You’ve been schooled on this before, BadWaxJob. The adjustments still continue. Recent measurements should be downward because of accelerating UHI but they aren’t. Big red flag that you dishonest Alarmists ignore.

bdgwx
Reply to  Meab
August 3, 2022 1:11 pm

The UHI bias (not to be confused with the UHI effect) is assessed as -0.10 ± 0.24 C/century from 1950 to 2010 by Wickham et al. 2013 therefore if any adjustment should made for the bias (not the effect) then it should be upward, albeit only slightly, after WWII; not downward.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  bdgwx
August 3, 2022 2:36 pm

Since only the US, the UK, some parts of Europe, Japan and Australia had extensive coverage of temperature monitoring sites in the first half of the 20th Century, I don’t know where anyone gets a global average from this time. However, those places do all show similar trends during the this time. So we can infer if the world was heating or cooling 100 years ago. The US ‘official’ temperature record has been badly distorted by all the adjustments. Just observe how the current administration has vacated so many pre-1950 records so that most people don’t even see the highs of the mid 30s. Or the overwhelming amount of sq miles of forest burned annually. Or the floods that overflowed each year. They all try to scare you into thinking that now is some how the most terrifying time to be alive. It has been happening since men could talk. I don’t how you keep falling for it.

Loydo
Reply to  lee
August 2, 2022 10:34 pm

Jumps and pauses, jumps and pauses
They go together like a horse and carriage
This I tell you brother
You can’t have one without the other

Reply to  Loydo
August 3, 2022 3:13 am

Sung to the tune of Love and Marriage
Pretty good Loydo

Reacher51
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 11:18 am

Pretty good? The second line doesn’t even rhyme.

How about substituting with “Wave your hands and make up causes,” or “Inconvenient for all but fraudses”?

Reply to  Reacher51
August 3, 2022 12:28 pm

Loydo has to be graded on a curve
Pretty good for Loydo

Robert W Turner
Reply to  AlanJ
August 2, 2022 3:45 pm

What you have done is cherry picked random points to show trends more negative than the current pause. To actually show the pauses you would need to extend them to their major El Nino starting points and go until the pause is broken.
The only point Monckton is cherry picking is the present, because it’s the entire point of his post to show how long the current hiatus is.
Hope that clears up your confusion.

AlanJ
Reply to  Robert W Turner
August 2, 2022 5:22 pm

I assure you I did not cherry pick. I merely identified pauses in the data and ignored everything else around them.

Loydo
Reply to  AlanJ
August 2, 2022 10:36 pm

Oof.

Robert Wager
Reply to  Loydo
August 3, 2022 8:30 am

What effect do you think a negative cycle for the PDO and AMO will have in the coming decades?

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 8:42 am

Like the Y Axis

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  AlanJ
August 2, 2022 6:36 pm

AlanJ,
One significant difference – the current pause has not yet ended.
Sadly, climate science remains naive, unable to predict when a temperature change will end this pause.
Yet, many climate change ‘experts’ are projecting temperatures out to year 2300. How clever.
Geoff S

AlanJ
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
August 2, 2022 7:54 pm

Ah, yes, surely we will be right this time! Thank you for the encouraging words. This pause will be the one to prove all those scientists wrong for good and for all.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 2:57 am

AlanJ,
If you wish to say that, attribute it to yourself, not to me. I made no predictions.
Geoff S

JamesD
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 8:06 am

Define wrong. We define wrong as predicting 3C per century. And they are wrong.

paul courtney
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 11:41 am

Mr. J: At least you acknowledge the pauses, it’s the first step to resolve your AGW alarmist addiction. Now, can you match those pauses to pauses in CO2 measured in the atmosphere? If they don’t match up, then congratulations! You are ready for step 2.

Bob B.
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 4:33 am

Com’on man, this graph aligns with Lord Monckton’s evaluation of +1.38 degrees/century IF the trend continues. This is not alarming. Maybe if you stretch the y-axis to .05 increments it will really be scary.

Mark Whitney
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 6:31 am

Looks less dramatic without the compressed x-axis.

a chart 2.png
AlanJ
Reply to  Mark Whitney
August 3, 2022 6:38 am

I love this. We can make things look even more benign by squashing down the y-axis!

comment image

Man, I’m worried about that cute little line. Are you?

Last edited 4 months ago by AlanJ
Mark Whitney
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 7:23 am

That’s more like it. It is fun to play with the axis, or the reference point. Making people afraid by manipulating perception is what the game is. Nothing particularly frightening is going on with climate other than the attempts to rearrange reality for power and profit.

Last edited 4 months ago by Mark Whitney
Mark Whitney
Reply to  Mark Whitney
August 3, 2022 7:35 am

It hould be captioned “How to make half a degree look like the end of the world, and other mind games”

Loydo
Reply to  Mark Whitney
August 3, 2022 1:01 pm

Is it because you don’t want to see the pattern?
The whole idea of a graph is to show the pattern not hide it. If you were ill and that was a plot of your temperature or your blood sugar level I think you’d want a larger x-axis.

AlanJ
Reply to  Loydo
August 3, 2022 4:54 pm

I don’t know, the squished down graph makes me much happier to look at it. I don’t feel worried about anything when I hide reality from myself.

Mark Whitney
Reply to  AlanJ
August 4, 2022 6:36 am

Chuckle. Rescaled reality to scare yourself. None of the graphs cause me any worry because, despite the scale, I can interpret the data, and it all tells the same story. Yawn.

Mark Whitney
Reply to  Loydo
August 4, 2022 6:40 am

It is easy to find patterns if you try and choose the parts that fit the pattern you want to see. It is easy to find confirmations if you look for confirmations. But if you want to hide under the covers and scare yourself that is your choice.

JamesD
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 8:01 am

It continues to show that the model is off by a factor of 3.

Robert Wager
Reply to  AlanJ
August 3, 2022 8:23 am

How about from 2002-2022 (20 years). 2/3 of what we are told to use for climate (not weather). Hmmm bugger all change there.

Vuk
August 2, 2022 2:12 pm

Sir,
I was sorry to read about your recent loss, my sincere condolences and  deepest sympathy.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Vuk
August 2, 2022 6:24 pm

Yes,
In distant Australia I have just seen the news on this sad occasion and add my condolences. Geoff S

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Vuk
August 2, 2022 7:28 pm

The obituary was beautifully written, too. What a wonderful tribute. Grief is so difficult. I admire your example.

ATheoK
Reply to  Vuk
August 3, 2022 7:15 am

??
Specifics please?

Reply to  Vuk
August 4, 2022 7:38 am

Many thanks to Vuk and others here for their kind condolences. My late mother had a wonderful last few months, and, just a few days before she died, came to the family box at Lord’s Cricket Ground to watch the last-ever Eton v. Harrow cricket match. Six generations of my family are Harrovians, and Harrow won. Better still, the Etonians in the crowd behaved so badly, letting off smoke-bombs as though this were a mere football match, that they were expelled from the ground. A double victory for the world’s finest school. My mother loved it all.

Steve Case
August 2, 2022 2:30 pm

The New Pause lengthens to 7 years 11 months
____________________________________

I can imagine that Skeptical Science will drag out their “Escalator” animated GIF graph and rightly so.

But at the end of the day, how much warming has there been since 1850 or1880 besides only about a degree or so? The weather here in Wisconsin has been gorgeous this summer. We had a good hard rain with some local flooding a week or so ago, but the corn crop sure liked it. There just isn’t anything to complain about.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steve Case
August 2, 2022 2:49 pm

Escalator? Funny, the UN IPCC CliSciFi models show essentially monotonic increases as a linear function of CO2. Its either one or the other: You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Last edited 4 months ago by Charlie Skeptic
n.n
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 2, 2022 5:28 pm

Progressive or [unqualified] monotonic change. That said, in the modern model, it’s abort your baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too, and they sincerely believe that it’s both logical and humane.

M Courtney
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 3, 2022 12:17 am

The argument is that GHGs retain more heat in the atmosphere relative to the GG concentration (well, there’s a factor for light interacting with molecules but that’s about the speed of light so it can be ignored on a daily basis). And the CO2 is known to rise continuously from Mauna Loa (with seasonal variation).

So to make the “escalator” work there needs to be something that stores heat as a form other than temperature and then releases it all at once.

What is the something? No-one knows. No-one seems to want to guess. No-one has a clue why it starts to store or why it releases.
But it must be a big enough store to hold over a decades worth of global warming heat. And it must be obscure enough that no climate model has been conceived of that contain it.

This is not science. This is back to belief in unseen mystical forces. T’is Zeus or Gandalf that control the weather in SKS-world.
Which at least is more plausible than IPCC projections.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  M Courtney
August 3, 2022 3:58 am

“This is not science. This is back to belief in unseen mystical forces.”

It’s definitely not science. Alarmist climate science is made up of unsubstantiatied assumptions and assertions. It’s evidence free.

The world’s leaders are acting on these unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions to the detriment of us all. All thanks to dishonest alarmist climate scientists and their lies and distortions about the Earth’s climate.

H.R.
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 3, 2022 5:53 am

Now there is a positive feedback loop.

CliSciFi -> Politicians -> $$$ – CliSciFi -> Politicians -> $$$

And on and on.

paul courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
August 3, 2022 11:49 am

Mr. Courtney: Now it all makes sense!!! It’s Zeus!!!!! That’s why EVs will solve AGW!! He’s the god with the lightning bolts!!!!

Robert Wager
Reply to  Steve Case
August 3, 2022 8:34 am

We have had a very short summer so far on the West coast. We had snow on the local mountains in May. We went from winter to summer with almost zero spring this year.

Kevin McNeill
Reply to  Robert Wager
August 3, 2022 10:15 am

I don’t know what west coast you’re on but here in the real PNW it’s been pretty normal. There is always snow on the local mountain well into May and sometimes early June.

CHARLES MAY
August 2, 2022 2:46 pm

Besides the pause, there is a negative trend in the data. Are we now in an era of cooling?

uah pause and negative trend.jpg
Dave Fair
Reply to  CHARLES MAY
August 2, 2022 2:54 pm

Live by the Super El Niño, die by the Super El Niño.

John Tillman
Reply to  CHARLES MAY
August 2, 2022 5:22 pm

Despite a warm July, Earth is still in a cooling trend, begun 6.5 years ago in February 2016, at the peak of Super El Nino 2015-16.

Bellman
Reply to  John Tillman
August 2, 2022 5:37 pm

That is what a large El Niño – a naturally-occurring process – does to the trend from time to time.

Reply to  John Tillman
August 3, 2022 12:29 pm

Data mining balony

Reply to  CHARLES MAY
August 2, 2022 7:44 pm

Yes — at least the Jan – Jul data says so … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVbGdJzw8KQ

Neil
August 2, 2022 3:16 pm

Global 150m depth-averaged Temperature (bom.gov.au)

Global 400m depth-averaged Temperature (bom.gov.au)

I have put 2 links to BOM Australia global ocean temperature maps for 400m and to 150m.

Go to the bottom of the pages for the anomalies.

It seems to me that the heat from the oceans has moved to the ocean surface and evaporated from there into the atmosphere causing the recent atmospheric warming.
These maps were published August 1st.

Richard M
Reply to  Neil
August 3, 2022 6:29 am

Yes, there was a surge of warmer water into the Nino areas which brought the index into the neutral position. You can see this with the animated graphs on the reference pages. Looks like that is over now and we appear headed back into La Nina territory for the foreseeable future.

Chris Hanley
August 2, 2022 3:18 pm

If it is assumed that the GAT has been solely the result of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 as per the IPCC then the effect is declining as would be expected theoretically.
comment image

Bellman
August 2, 2022 3:36 pm

I well remember the first time I drew the attention of the U.S. House of Representatives to the fact that, at that time (in 2007 or thereby), as now, there had been no global warming for seven or eight years: in fact, there had been a small cooling.

I think Monckton’s memory is playing tricks. According to UAH data the seven years up to 2007 was rising at the rate of 0.15°C / decade. The eight years up to the start of 2007 was warming at the rate of 0.22°C / decade.

I think the cherry pick Monckton is referring to was from March 2009, when he made a mountain out of seven years of cooling since 2002.

Incidentally the UAH trend since 2002 is now 0.15°C / decade..

RickWill
August 2, 2022 3:38 pm

There is no pause in the Southern Ocean – It is still cooling. There is no pause in the Equatorial ocean. It has been steady for centuries. The Northern Oceans are continuing to warm and will do so for the next few thousands years until the ice mountains reform.

NCEP_Three_Trends.png
n.n
Reply to  RickWill
August 2, 2022 5:31 pm

Unsynchronized phase shifts forcing the records to sustain catastrophic perturbations in what some believe to be a staircase to hell.

Loydo
Reply to  RickWill
August 2, 2022 10:46 pm

Can you show the whole SH, the whole NH and the whole tropics? Not just the bits you like.

RickWill
Reply to  Loydo
August 2, 2022 11:30 pm

Can you show the whole SH, the whole NH and the whole tropics? Not just the bits you like.

Why would I need to do that. The climate models all show about 2.5C/century warming everywhere for every month of the year.

The best example of the model failures is the Nino34 region. It simply cannot get warmer than 30C for any period beyond a month or two and has averaged 27C throughout the satellite era.

Close analysis of all climate models shows they are of incompetent design produced by incompetent dullards. They have no relationship to what is being experienced on the surface of the planet. Even where they have jagged the average annual increase, they get the monthly trends way off.

Nino34_CSIRO_CIMP3.png
Jim Gorman
Reply to  RickWill
August 3, 2022 5:26 am

Have you read the Confessions of a climate scientist by Mototaka Nakamure (free at Amazon)? You just hit about every point he makes about the models he was familiar with. His feeling is that they are good for academic studies of what changes might do but are worthless for predictions. The oceans and clouds are simply not modeled correctly and probably won’t ever be.

RickWill
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 3, 2022 3:54 pm

I have not read his book but have viewed some of his papers.

But the Church of Climate Change has a strong grip. Syukuro Manabe accepted the 2021 Nobel Prize in physics for his climate models that connect Global Warming to CO2. The faithful have massive influence. Observations are relegated to the naughty corner because they do not obey the models.

It is silly of Monckton to be pushing the “pause” barrow because he will be going up the staircase in a the next couple of years when the next El Nino occurs. The NH temperatures are bound to increase for a long time to come. The middle chart for the Nino34 region shows Jupiter’s orbital period that influences Earth’s orbit. It is close to a minimum in the cycle now and has been in an extended La Nina phase. The next big El Nino will probably be around 2031.

Loydo
Reply to  RickWill
August 3, 2022 8:32 pm

“The best example…” You mean cherry-pick?

Robert W Turner
August 2, 2022 3:42 pm

To me it looks like a repeat of the head and shoulders pattern we had last year, only we’re a month ahead and last month’s shoulder was much deeper than last years.

david s
August 2, 2022 3:43 pm

If we look at the full record of the UAH data we get ;
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1975/to:2022/plot/uah6/from:1975/to:2022/trend

The linear trend line slope is 1.35C per century. is that a catastrophe?
If the temperature of Detroit increased by a full 2C then it would be about like Indianapolis Indiana or Columbus Ohio. Is that a catastrophe?

August 2, 2022 3:44 pm

Christopher Monckton of Baloney is back with his usual data mining of the UAH temperature record. The click bait headline man. He cherry picks a short term trend and fails to include the context of the long term UAH trend from 1979: “The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).” (published today)

Momckton fails to discuss whether short term global average temperature trends have any predictive ability — they do not.

He correctly points out how climate computer games overpredict the rate of global warming. And they have done so for over 40 years. The obvious reason is that accurate predictions are not a goal. Scary predictions are the goal. That’s why 40+ years of “refinement” made the predictions for even faster global warming than prior predictions (CMIP6 versus CMIP5), which were already overpredicting the rate of global warming.

Even worse than 40 years of wrong predictions is failing to give 99% of the attention to the Russian INM model, that least overpredicts the rate of global warming. Who does that? Only people who do not care about climate model accuracy. Would a weather forecaster ignore the most accurate weather model? Of course not, if an accurate prediction was his goal.

Monckton claims there had been no global warming for seven or eight years: So what? That could be the start of a new trend or nothingburger.
No one knows.

But we do know that the 325 years of global warming since the cold 1690s during the Maunder Minimum period has had periods of no warming. The biased Monckton will forget to mention there were 35 years of global cooling, from 1940 to 1975, as CO2 levels rose, yet global warming continued in 1975, even faster than before.

Knowing climate history, a seven-year flat trend, helped by a starting period that included a huge El Nino heat release (2015 and 2016) unrelated to greenhouse gases. is just data mining … very likely to have no predictive ability of the future climate. And it is long past time for Monckton of Baloney’s data mining to stop. There are too many other good Climate Howler targets to focus on.

You can’t refute 50 years of climate scaremongering propaganda by pointing out a short term flat trend in a database (UAH) that Climate Howlers never heard of, which is not even funded by the government anymore.

The Climate Howlers love PREDICTIONS of climate doom. Their imaginary climate emergency is coming in the future. It has been coming in 10 or 20 years, for the past 50 years. It’s still “coming”, It will always be coming, in my opinion.

Climate Howler could not care less about the past or present climate, which is unrelated to their scary predictions of climate doom.

Last edited 4 months ago by Richard Greene
Chris Hanley
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 2, 2022 3:59 pm

It will always be coming.

They are now howling that it is already here: “John Kerry, says President Joe Biden is considering announcing a climate emergency” (BBC).

Last edited 4 months ago by Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 2, 2022 4:25 pm

It will be a hard sell to convince people
that now (2022) s a climate emergency with
8 billion witnesses to some or all of the
global warming since 1975. If the past 47
years of global warming was not an emergency,
why would 2022 suddenly be a climate emergency?

They are declaring a climate emergency now
for the predicted climate emergency imagined
in the futire. I can’t believe most people
would believe 2022 was a climate emergency.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 2, 2022 7:39 pm

According to Joe Dementia, the “climate emergency” is “oil rain” in his childhood that gave him skin cancer. Or some such blathering nonsense. The man is a mental train wreck. Nothing at all to do with “global average temperature” which is a highly massaged and meaningless statistic, anyway.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
August 3, 2022 12:32 pm

Mister Joe Dementia, please show respect !

paul
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 5:15 pm

FJB hasn’t earned any respect

Graemethecat
Reply to  paul
August 4, 2022 9:42 am

But he has added enormously to the gaiety and amusement of the World with his surreal word salads.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
August 4, 2022 9:38 am

Biden defines the US in one word:

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 2, 2022 5:30 pm

Momckton fails to discuss whether short term global average temperature trends have any predictive ability — they do not.

If there is a trend, then the time-series is autocorrelated. That means that at least the last few samples have predictive value for the next temperature. That is, the definition of autocorrelation is that the old data has predictive value for new data. It isn’t like a deterministic system where the variables are known and well-characterized, but the trend does have a probabilistic predictive value. It is only a completely random series with a large range that lacks predictive value. Even for random events with a small range, one can comfortably predict that the new value(s) will have a similar range.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 2, 2022 9:05 pm

Thanks for the word salad, perfesser.

1910 to 1940 global warming did not predict 1940 to 1975 global cooling, which did not predict 1975 to 2022 global warming.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 1:05 am

No, why would it?

You appear to not understand what autocorrelation is, nor the fact that it may only be a factor over short lags.

Reply to  ThinkingScientist
August 3, 2022 3:21 am

You seem to have no grasp of climate history and the failure of humans to accurately predict long term climate trends. Nothing else matters.

Autocorrelation, also known as serial correlation, is the correlation of a signal with a delayed copy of itself as a function of delay. Informally, it is the similarity between observations as a function of the time lag between them. The analysis of autocorrelation is a mathematical tool for finding repeating patterns, such as the presence of a periodic signal obscured by noise, … = mathematical mass-turbation

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 5:44 am

What Clyde tried to tell you was that “weather” is autocorrelated. My grandpa used to say “look at the day before yesterday, then yesterday, then today, you can bet tomorrow will be the same”. Well it was hot, hot, and will probably be hot today. We had no rain, no rain, but it rained this morning. No one forecasted it. Only the local weather monitoring real time radar had a clue and they didn’t forecast it yester either.

Autocorrelation only gives you a tool. There will be a point where it is wrong. Such is life. We have not reached the point where a deterministic set of equations can be used to forecast with any degree of accuracy. Not today, not tomorrow, not a century from now.

We have barely begun to scratch in the dirt as to how the surface, the atmosphere, and the sun interact on a millennia scale let alone a century or a decadal or an annual scale. Autocorrelation is what so-called scientists are using to predict what will occur and it will fail them at some point.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 3, 2022 12:33 pm

short term weather is not long term climate

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 4, 2022 7:45 am

The spiteful Richard Greene should be more respectful of those who, unlike him, have an elementary understanding of probability and statistics. Clyde Spencer is correct.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 2, 2022 7:45 pm

We only CO2 to blame for the current cooling … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVbGdJzw8KQ

Reply to  John Shewchuk
August 2, 2022 9:06 pm

CO2 causes evet\ry problem in the world,
from cancer to warts.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 4:11 am

“Even worse than 40 years of wrong predictions is failing to give 99% of the attention to the Russian INM model, that least overpredicts the rate of global warming. Who does that? Only people who do not care about climate model accuracy.”

That’s a good point.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 5:44 am

How is starting at the endpoint and working backward in time “cherry picking”?

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 3, 2022 6:39 am

Monckton deliberately Ignores the context of the 43 year UAH rising temperature trend since 1979

His short term trend is influenced by the large El Nino heat release in late 2015 and early 2016

A short trend very likely has no ability to predict the future climate

Giving so much attention to a short term trend of a database that Climate Howlers reject, and governments do not fund, wastes valuable time and effort that should have been used to refute Climate Howler predictions of climate doom, and pointing out how they have been wrong for over 50 years so far.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 11:41 am

Monckton deliberately Ignores the context of the 43 year UAH rising temperature trend since 1979

What trend results would lead you to conclude that the trend has changed?

A short trend very likely has no ability to predict the future climate

Who is trying to make predictions (oops soory “projections”) except the IPCC and ilk? “Very likely” sounds a lot like IPCC weasel words.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 3, 2022 12:34 pm

10 years of unusually cool weather would be a good start, with not one hottest year evah’ announcement. Of course that could happen and the government bureaucrats could fixed the books to claim it did not happen.
So if would have to be 10 unusually cool years that people would notice without needing to be told by NASA-GISS, HadCRUT etc.

Last edited 4 months ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 4, 2022 7:43 am

The spiteful Richard Greene should read the head posting. I had shown the UAH trend not just for the eight years of the current Pause but also since 1990, the year of IPCC’s first assessment report.

The truth is that those not familiar with equations and suchlike arcana are at once capable of understanding that, notwithstanding our cumulative sins of emission, there has been no global warming for almost eight years.

Clarity is useful.

Javier
August 2, 2022 3:45 pm

The important thing with these pauses is that they occur because since mid 1990s the long term velocity of warming (15 year avg ºC/year) has been decreasing. This is contrary to theory.

comment image

When a pause goes above 15 years the line in the graph goes below the zero line.

Bellman
Reply to  Javier
August 2, 2022 4:26 pm

For UAH the trend over the last 15 years, is 0.29°C / decade, close to the fastest 15 year trend in the data set.

20220802wuwt1.png
Javier
Reply to  Bellman
August 2, 2022 4:47 pm

That is just a peak. There are peaks all over the place the same there are pauses all over the place.

No warming since Feb 2016 means 6.5 years of negative rate. The 15-yr moving average is going to drop very fast, keeping with the decreasing rate since the 1990s.

Global warming is still taking place, but it is decelerating, and it shouldn’t, should it?

These pauses should not take place with all the CO2 we continue putting in the atmosphere. They are really pushing down the long term warming rate that instead should be accelerating.

Bellman
Reply to  Javier
August 2, 2022 5:24 pm

I’m just trying to figure out what your point is. You are claiming that global warming is decelerating, but I don’t see any evidence for that. You want to base it on 15 year trends, but then insist that although the current 5 year trend is a lot faster than the overall trend, and as fast as it’s ever been, you say that is just a spike and want to talk about a hypothetical future reduction.

I’m just not sure what test confirms that the rate of warming is decelerating. For example, comparing a quadratic smoothing with the linear, and there’s little difference, and no sign of a deceleration.

20220802wuwt2.png
Javier
Reply to  Bellman
August 3, 2022 1:21 am

I don’t see any evidence for that

You are not looking where you should. Temperatures go up and down all the time. You need to look on the rate of change (first derivative) using a long enough moving average. That tells you if the warming is speeding or slowing.

15 years is long enough to smooth the decadal changes, but not too long to see what warming has been doing lately.

The graph reveals a small upward trend in warming that could be partly anthropogenic, and a large oscillation that is well known since 1994, and we are in the downward part of that oscillation since the mid-90s

Schlesinger, M.E. and Ramankutty, N., 1994. An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65–70 years. Nature367(6465), pp.723-726.

Nothing to worry really. The projected warming will fail. We will have less warming that it has been anticipated. This evidence is not being told, but global warming is decelerating.

Bellman
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 6:44 am

You are not looking where you should.

Or maybe I’m trying to get an overall picture, rather than looking for some random change you can use as flimsy support for your deceleration hypothesis.

You need to look on the rate of change (first derivative) using a long enough moving average.

As I’ve said below, your method is not a good way of determining rate of change, and 15 years is not a long enough period. All you are effectively doing is comparing one year with a single year from 15 years ago, and ignoring everything in-between. The fact that the graphs fluctuate so much year to year should indicate that this is not a good way of seeing “what warming has been doing”.

Here is my version of your method applied to UAH data. I’ve used a 12 month period rather than 13 months as that’s the length of a year where I come from.

Not the only real negative trend happens in 2013, 15 years after the big El Niño of 1998.

20220803wuwt1.png
Javier
Reply to  Bellman
August 3, 2022 8:43 am

 All you are effectively doing is comparing one year with a single year from 15 years ago

Ovbiously you didn’t understand. I am comparing a 15-yr trend centered on one month, with the 15-yr trend centered on the nex month, and the next month. It is a succession of 15-yr trends, that has been trending down since the mid-1990s.

Richard M
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 6:45 am

Exactly, we are right on the tail end of the 1995 AMO phase change and induced warming which was pumped up a little by the PDO phase change in 2014. With the current La Nina the PDO naturally fell back into a negative position. Hence, the pause.

The original pause was also the result of the PDO going negative from 2006-2014.

What happens next? Probably La Nina into 2023 and El Nino in 2023-24. Then, we could very easily see the AMO make its final fall into negative territory for the next 30 years.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 1:26 pm

This is close to three cycles of the solar magnetic field: 22×3=66. Perhaps a full cycle is about 130 years.

n.n
Reply to  Javier
August 2, 2022 5:37 pm

Aside from the spread of the Green Blight with renewable/intermittent/unreliable energy converters, and environmental rape to scavenge disparately distributed rare earth minerals, a net-zero climate effect to sustain redistributive change schemes in democratic dictatorships. Voters of the world, take a knee, beg, …

Loydo
Reply to  Javier
August 2, 2022 9:48 pm

“Global warming is still taking place, but it is decelerating, and it shouldn’t, should it?
These pauses should not take place with all the CO2 we continue putting in the atmosphere. They are really pushing down the long term warming rate that instead should be accelerating.”

I don’t think atmospheric temperature anomaly alone is enough to draw those conclusions with any confidence. What does the SST velocity graph looks like? Wouldn’t that be a far better indication given 90% of the energy is accumulating in the oceans?

comment image

Data from here: https://www.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/cobesst/cobe-sst.html

Javier
Reply to  Loydo
August 3, 2022 1:28 am

I never heard that the dangerous warming limit was 2ºC of ocean warming. It has always been surface temperature. If the surface warming is decelerating then we have more time before the planet goes bang from overheating. That’s supposed to happen when we go from 1.99 to 2.00 ºC GSAT anomaly.

Loydo
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 3:24 am

I might be wrong but I was assuming that SST would paint a less noisy picture of the rate of change; sitting on top of all that thermal inertia as it were and provide a smoother, less volatile indicator. To the nub of it: is the long term velocity of warming of the ocean’s surface decreasing?
Or more indicative still: is the rate of change of ocean heat content increasing of decreasing? If you demonstrated the rate is decreasing over decadal timespans then that would be a challenge to explain.

Last edited 4 months ago by Loydo
Javier
Reply to  Loydo
August 3, 2022 3:52 am

I might be wrong but I was assuming that SST would paint a less noisy picture of the rate of change

You might be wrong. SST in the open ocean is limited to 30ºC, but already at 27ºC deep convection starts to act. So SST is capped at that limit. And, as solar energy goes into the ocean, but non-solar energy goes out of the ocean, when you measure SST you essentially measure the energy flux from the ocean towards the atmosphere. The problem is you don’t really know what controls that flux, so you don’t know what you are measuring. Essentially 2/3 of the energy coming out if the ocean is latent heat, and evaporation is dependent mainly on wind speed, then on air humidity, and finally as a distant third on water temperature. How much control do you have over those factors?

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 9:12 am

Air pressure also affects evaporation. If air pressure is high on the surface of a body of water, then the water will not evaporate easily. The pressure pushing down on the water makes it difficult for water to escape into the atmosphere as vapor

Loydo
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 8:40 pm

How is plotting air temperature any less problematic given it’s largely a slave to ocean temperature.So go with OHC. I might be wrong… but I’ll wager your polynomial will look a lot different when you plot the elephant and not it’ flicky tail.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Loydo
August 3, 2022 2:55 am
  1. Why is it linear from 1910 when the GHG forcing post-1950s is at least 3x greater then pre-1950s?
  2. You don’t show anything prior to 1890 – why not?
  3. The warming is supposed to be caused by GHG since the “dawn of the industrial revolution” as the BBC so dramatically calls it, which is about 1760 – 1840. HadCRUT4 shows statistically significant cooling (or at least, no warming) from 1850 – 1910. How is that possible?
  4. If the cause is the industrial revolution, did that start in 1910?
  5. Why do glacier retreat and sea level rise data show the onset of (linear) warming as early as 1830 – 1850 but the CMIP6 GHG forcings and model results show that warming could not have been possible until around 1910 at the earliest. (At which point you can loop back to Q1).

The attached image shows Figure 1 from AR6 SPM on the left – no warming until 1910 in either models or HadCRUT4 as presented by the best of the best of the best. The figure on the right shows the CMIP6 model re-baselined to the period 1961-1990 to illustrate how bad a fit it really is and that it is over-predicting current warming and under-predicting warming in the first half of the C20th.

UAH added to the plot on right for good measure.

AR6SPM_Fig1_rebaselined.jpg
Last edited 4 months ago by ThinkingScientist
Tom Abbott
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
August 3, 2022 4:44 am

“Observed”, my hindquarters.

Unbastardized charts from all over the world show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. Those are real observations.

Your Hockey Stick charts don’t show the Early Twentieth Century Warming. They are, in fact, a fraud perpetrated by dishonest people.

There’s a good book on the subject advertised on this webpage titled “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. You should read it.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 3, 2022 5:13 am

Hi Tom, not sure why you are lambasting me – my points were directed at Loydo. and they actually support what you say (see Point (5).

The word “observed” doesn’t actually appear in my post.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 3, 2022 12:42 pm

Early 20th century temperature data are very rough and mainly a Northern Hemisphere average Anyone who claims good accuracy and a “global” average is lying.

Six charts showing distribution of land based weather stations in the old days:

Honest global warming chart Blog: Poor distribution of land-based weather stations (elonionbloggle.blogspot.com)

Loydo
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 3, 2022 8:42 pm

Unbastardized charts from all over the world…”

Such as?

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  Loydo
August 4, 2022 1:41 am

You didn’t answer any of my points Loydo. Cat got your tongue?

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
August 4, 2022 9:49 am

How did they know the SST without satellites in 1890?

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Javier
August 2, 2022 6:44 pm

The pauses occur for the same reason that humans see patterns in the random position of stars in the sky. It is cherry picking pure and simple. The temperature data consists of a long term upward trend with lots of short term noise. In the UAH data the long term trend is 0.13 degrees per decade. However the monthly change from June to July was 0.3 degrees which is over 270 times as large as the long term trend. Now try creating an arbitrary time series where the point to point fluctuations are 270 times as big as the long term trend and see how many “pauses” you are likely to find.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 2, 2022 8:35 pm

Izaak the Idiot drops another tab of acid.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 3, 2022 1:25 am

Carbonic Acid?

Javier
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 3, 2022 1:31 am

The long term trend does not tell you if the warming is accelerating or decelerating. It should be accelerating because every CO2 molecule we put in the atmosphere does its job incrementally. But it is decelerating, as the first derivative of temperature shows. This should not be possible according to theory, so the theory is wrong.

Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 6:43 am

 “It should be accelerating because every CO2 molecule we put in the atmosphere does its job incrementally.”

CO2 becomes a weaker greenhouse gas as the concentration increases. Aso, there are many other causes of climate change — the exact effect of CO2 can not be known without knowing the exact effect of every other climate change variable.

If CO2 emissions remained constant, any warming effect of CO2 would not be accelerating. Each +100ppm CO2 increase would cause less warming than the prior +100ppm CO2 increase.

Javier
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 8:51 am

CO2 becomes a weaker greenhouse gas as the concentration increases.

It doesn’t matter because we are adding it in exponentially increasing amounts. That is what the second part of the graph shows (red areas). Warming should be accelerating, yet it is decelerating. That is why this is not being told.

The greenhouse theory is correct, the CO2-hypothesis that CO2 changes control climate changes must be wrong because the evidence negates it. Other things must control climate change.

Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 12:47 pm

Baloney
The current amount of CO2 impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself by some unknown amount.

Increased CO2 increases that amount

Every +100ppm CO2 increase has less effect than the prior +100ppm increase.

You are wrong– that is not acceleration — not if the CO2 ppm growth per year remains the same from year to year.

Loydo
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 8:50 pm

No, the flaw is that you are basing all this certainty on the flimsiest of curve-fitted graphs of a very small, 5 years out of date part of the warming.

comment image

What decelleration? Oh, mean that purple bit?

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
August 4, 2022 9:52 am

Why do you insist on posting time and time again your entirely fatuous and invented ocean heat content graph?

bdgwx
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 7:46 am

There are many other factors that modulate the UAH TLT temperature. CO2 is only one among many. Anyway, when I do a second order polynomial regression I get a positive x^2 term albeit small.

Javier
Reply to  bdgwx
August 3, 2022 8:53 am

There are many other factors that modulate the UAH TLT temperature

Exactly, climate is complex and GHGs are only a part of the story. This means emissions reductions by some countries will achieve nothing. It is self-evident yet denied by so many.

Edim
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 3, 2022 5:18 am

Yes, there’s a long term upward, which IMO is also a part of a longer term oscillation/variability. However, at somewhat shorter multidecadal timescales, there’s a clear ~60 year cycle.
Here are some derivatives (scaled to °C/century) of the low-pass filtered (triple running mean, various lengths) HadCRUT4:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:240/mean:168/mean:120/derivative/scale:1200/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:360/mean:252/mean:180/derivative/scale:1200/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:480/mean:336/mean:240/derivative/scale:1200/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:600/mean:420/mean:300/derivative/scale:1200/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720/mean:504/mean:360/derivative/scale:1200

Richard M
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 3, 2022 9:29 am

Not at all. The pauses align very well with natural ocean phase changes. The pause that started in 1997 started after the AMO moving into is warm phase and then the PDO into it’s cool phase. The current one started after the PDO went back into warm phase and then cooled due to La Nina.

One thing that doesn’t show up is any evidence of CO2 based warming.

Reply to  Javier
August 2, 2022 7:49 pm

Excellent graph Javier. Much appreciate your analyses.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Javier
August 2, 2022 11:06 pm

Javier

Your chart, which appears to stop in 2016, suggests that the linear trend in the 181-month centred average of HadCRUT4 dipped below 0ºC some time in the early 2000s.

I can’t find any such 181-month centred average negative period, either in HadCRUT4 or the more recent HadCRUT5.

The last 181-month centred period with a negative trend in HadCRUT4 that I can find is from 1963/07-1978/08. Is this your own chart, and if so, may I ask which version of HadCRUT4 are you using?

Javier
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 3, 2022 1:53 am

Your chart, which appears to stop in 2016

It doesn’t. It is a 15-yr centered moving average, so the last point in 2014 includes data between 2006.5 and 2021.5

To exactly reproduce that graph do the following.

1) At HadCRUT 4.6 subtract the temperature of each month from the previous month to calculate the monthly changes.

2) Calculate a 13-month centered moving average to deseasonalize the data.

3) Calculate a 181-month centered moving average and multiply by 12 to get the 15-yr moving rate in ºC/year, not per month.

Calculated in this way the pause goes from November 1997 to September 2013 and the negative values are at its center in 2005-2006.

Last edited 4 months ago by Javier
Bellman
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 5:58 am

Are so that’s what you were doing.

All of the above is just saying you are basing each 15 year trend on the difference between one year (or 13 month period) with the 13 months 15 years earlier. Ignoring everything in-between. This inevitably makes your changing “velocity” more changeable and arbitrary. If the current year is warm, but there was a warmer spike exactly 15 years earlier, you see cooling, if that spike had been 16 years earlier and 15 years ago there was unusually cool, you have rapid warming.

As Monckton says, it’s much better to look at a linear regression over the period, and take into account all the data. Even so, 15 year trends are still liable to change, caused by natural changes such as ENSO, which is why I still don’t know what your evidence is for a deceleration.

Javier
Reply to  Bellman
August 3, 2022 8:59 am

All of the above is just saying you are basing each 15 year trend on the difference between one year (or 13 month period) with the 13 months 15 years earlier. Ignoring everything in-between.

How can you be not able to understand such simple procedure? I am calculating a 181-month trend centered on a single month, and sliding that window month by month over the entire series. This calculates the trend of 15-yr trends. It doesn’t ignore anything.

Bellman
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 9:58 am

My point is that each of your 15-yr trends is based on the difference between one year and a year 15 years ago, ignoring everything in between. Yes, that data will be included in later trends, but only by comparing to a different year. That’s why the rolling trends are so noisy.

If you think any one of your 15-yr trends is including all the data, maybe you haven’t thought through the logic of averaging consecutive monthly differences. When you do that, all the middle terms cancel.

E.g, you start by averaging 13 differences to give you a year and a month. Say the monthly anomalies are x_1, x_2 … x_14. Each difference is given by x_i – x_{i – 1}. Add your 13 differences and you get

(x_14 – x_13) + (x_13 – x_12) + (x_12 – x_11) +… + (x_2 – x_1)

that is,

x_14 – (x_13 – x_13) – (x_12 – x_12) – … – (x_2 – x_2) – x_1 = x_14 – x_1.

It’s similar when you combine 181 of these annual averages to get your 15-yr trend, but there you will be left with just the last 13 months minus the first 13 months.

Javier
Reply to  Bellman
August 3, 2022 1:11 pm

My point is that each of your 15-yr trends is based on the difference between one year and a year 15 years ago, ignoring everything in between.

Your point is still incorrect. Each 15 year trend is the average of the temperature difference for each month with the previous month. So it is an average of 181 values and ignores nothing of the temperature changes that have taken place over those 15 years.

As the 15-yr trend moves over the temperature function month by month it constitutes a derivative where h is 15 years instead of approaching zero. It gives a derivative function that is represented in the graph and that informs how the 15-yr trend in temperature change has been changing over time. As it is trending down, global warming is decelerating. This is a fact, not an opinion.

And it is a fact supported by the scientific literature. When my graph is overlaid over Schlesinger & Ramankutty graph it can be seen clearly that the change in warming rate is followed by the change in temperature as it should.

comment image

Not something that believers in a climate crisis are ready to accept. Who’s denying reality now?

Bellman
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 1:59 pm

So it is an average of 181 values and ignores nothing of the temperature changes that have taken place over those 15 years.

You ignore the part of my comment where I show that when you take an average of differences you just throw away all the data in the middle and are just left with the end points.

As the 15-yr trend moves over the temperature function month by month it constitutes a derivative where h is 15 years instead of approaching zero.

A derivative with an interval of 15 years is just the difference between two points 15 years apart.

It gives a derivative function that is represented in the graph and that informs how the 15-yr trend in temperature change has been changing over time

Only for your limited definition of trend.

As it is trending down, global warming is decelerating. This is a fact, not an opinion.

Your fact is very dependent on your assumptions, as to when something is “trending down”. Different time frames, will give very different results, and you still haven;t provided any statistically significant evidence that anything is trending down.

Javier
Reply to  Bellman
August 3, 2022 2:28 pm

You ignore the part of my comment where I show that when you take an average of differences you just throw away all the data in the middle and are just left with the end points.

That’s what happens when you give the temperature trend like for UAH between 1979 and 2022. But what I have done doesn’t do that because in the figure there are represented 1368 15-yr trends, so what the temperature has been doing every month is taken into consideration unlike in what you do when you calculate a single warming trend.

Your fact is very dependent on your assumptions, as to when something is “trending down”.

There are no assumptions, just definitions as in any study. As long as the results are presented according to the definitions the study cannot be questioned.

The choice of 15 years is as any other choice dependent on what one wants to see and study. Considering that there is a c. 60-yr oscillation chosing a 1/4 period is defensible, and shorter periods result in more noise.

If you don’t want to see what the analysis shows, that’s fine. Your supported hypothesis for climate change is destined for failure. I’m already working on a substitute hypothesis. Climate is complex. Simple answers like “CO2 did it” are for simple minds and result on lots of things unexplained.

Bellman
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 3:14 pm

But what I have done doesn’t do that because in the figure there are represented 1368 15-yr trends, so what the temperature has been doing every month is taken into consideration unlike in what you do when you calculate a single warming trend.

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. My point is that each of your 1368 15-yr trends, are only trends in the sense that they are comparing a straight line between two points, rather than the more useful trend derived from linear regression, which is the best fit for all the data over the period.

Of course, plotting the trend for every single month means that all months are covered in some way. It just means that the graph is very noisy, and it’s difficult to establish how you know that it shows a decelerating trend.

As long as the results are presented according to the definitions the study cannot be questioned.

I’m not sure this is the best website to make such a claim.

Considering that there is a c. 60-yr oscillation chosing a 1/4 period is defensible, and shorter periods result in more noise.

I just think there should be better ways of establishing if the 60 year oscillation is supported by the evidence.

If you don’t want to see what the analysis shows, that’s fine.

I’m not sure what your analysis shows, that is different to other oscillations.

Your graph implies you cannot use the oscillation to explain all warming. The “velocity” of temperature change over most of the oscillation is positive, and only rarely negative, hence something needs to be causing warming other than just the oscillation.

Your supported hypothesis for climate change is destined for failure.

Could be, but I’d prefer to wait to see the evidence, rather than making assumptions about destiny.

Bellman
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 2:33 pm

And it is a fact supported by the scientific literature. When my graph is overlaid over Schlesinger & Ramankutty graph it can be seen clearly that the change in warming rate is followed by the change in temperature as it should.

If you think the oscillation was a good predictor of the future, why not compare like with like, rather than all this messing about with 15 year trends?

Here is HadCRUT 4, detrended using a linear trend up to 1994, which I assume is what Schlesinger & Ramankutty were using.

20220803wuwt3.png
Javier
Reply to  Bellman
August 4, 2022 12:02 am

If you think the oscillation was a good predictor of the future

The ability to predict future behavior in temperature is reduced by the chaotic nature of weather. However its fractal behavior indicates similar things may have happened in the past. The super El Niño of 1876 also temporally interrupted a pause. This second pause Mockton defends might indicate a similar situation is taking place after the super El Niño of 2015.

comment image

Your graph implies you cannot use the oscillation to explain all warming.

I do not pretend that. The world has been warming for 350 years. Neither GHGs nor the multidecadal oscillation can fully explain it. The 1975-2000 period of accelerated warming was the result of the cooperation by the multidecadal oscillation, GHGs increase, and the modern solar maximum. Now they are no longer cooperating the warming has decelerated. The observations clearly show it.

There is a role for every factor in climate change. Simple solutions, like “our emissions did it”, or “the sun did it”, are clearly wrong.

Bellman
Reply to  Javier
August 4, 2022 12:58 pm

The super El Niño of 1876 also temporally interrupted a pause. This second pause Mockton defends might indicate a similar situation is taking place after the super El Niño of 2015.

Maybe updating the graph will indicate otherwise.

20220804wuwt1.png
Bellman
Reply to  Javier
August 4, 2022 1:12 pm

I do not pretend that.

Then I apologize. It’s just that most of the people who being up their cycle of choice are trying to claim that CO2 does not effect temperatures.

The world has been warming for 350 years.

Not as far as I’ve seen. Taking CET as the best indicator of global temperatures, there was a rapid warming phase as we came out of the Maunder Minimum period, then a bit of cooling, then more or less flat for the next 150 or more years, until the 20th century. From 1700 to 1930 the trend is flat, so, a 230 year pause in the middle of the 350 year period.

Now they are no longer cooperating the warming has decelerated. The observations clearly show it.

The do not clearly show it. If they did you wouldn’t need to be taking supposed 15-year derivatives and curve fitting.

The period from 1975 – 2022 is virtually identical to the period from 1975 – 2000. There’s no sign of a significant departure from a linear warming rate.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Javier
August 4, 2022 2:36 am

Why would you need to ‘deseasonalize’ monthly anomaly data? Each data point is the difference from a long term average for that particular month, so anomlies auotmatically deseasonalize. That’s one of the main reasons they are used in temperature series.

All step 1 of your process does is remove the linear trend from the data. You have de-trended the data, not de-seaonalized it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 4:22 am

That graph doesn’t seem to agree with Hockey Stick charts. The velocity of warming increases in the Early Twentieth Century while the Hockey Stick charts show cooling.

This graph is similar to the U.S. surface temperature profile where it is warm in the 1930’s, and cool in the 1970’s and the highpoints of 1998 and 2016 show up.

And the U.S. temperature profile is similar to all the unmodified, regional surface temperature charts from around the world.

comment image

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 3, 2022 6:45 am

That was the “old” climate history
We have new climate history now

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 3, 2022 1:17 pm

It might be beneficial to the WUWT audience to describe how the time-of-observation bias, instrument/shelter change bias, etc. were corrected when making this graph.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Javier
August 3, 2022 1:21 pm

As solar activity approaches that of the early 20th century, further decline is possible.

2hotel9
August 2, 2022 4:01 pm

“new pause” Okley Dokely!

Reply to  2hotel9
August 3, 2022 12:22 pm

More than just a pause … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVbGdJzw8KQ

DMA
August 2, 2022 4:14 pm

“Yet, as Dr Roy Spencer has just brilliantly pointed out at his website, the anthropogenic forcings are continuing to follow a pattern that would lead to a forcing equivalent to a doubling of CO2 concentration by the end of the 21st century, approximately in line with Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5, and not the deliberately extreme 8.5”
This statement accepts the erroneous assumption that our emissions control the atmospheric CO2 content. They do not and it is important that those leading the “truth in climate” discussions get that fact straight. Even if CO2 increases were the cause of the anemic warming (no proof of that exists) humans are only minimally responsible for that rise.

Loydo
Reply to  DMA
August 2, 2022 9:53 pm

So where did that additional trillion tons of CO2 come from and where did our 2 trillion tons go?

Climate believer
Reply to  Loydo
August 3, 2022 12:35 am

If only we could get rid of that pesky 0.0012% of man made CO² we could save the planet… or something.

Reply to  Climate believer
August 3, 2022 6:48 am

CO2 is 0.042% (420ppm)

Manmade CO2 is 0.0139% (approximately 1/3 of 420ppm)

Your number is very wrong.

ATheoK
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 8:00 am

Nope!
Your number richard is egregiously wrong.

Mankind’s contribution of CO₂ to global atmospheric CO₂ concentration is approximately 4%, Perhaps as high as 5%.

The OCO-2 satellite proved where the CO₂’s true emissions came from.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/

bdgwx
Reply to  ATheoK
August 3, 2022 8:14 am

Mankind’s contribution to the emission flux (in ppm/yr) is about 4%. A 4% change in the emission flux (in ppm/yr) integrated over many years adds up to a significant change in the atmospheric concentration (in ppm). Remember, you have to multiple ppm/yr by yr to convert to units of ppm. That’s the step many people miss. Over the course of 170 years mankind emitted 310 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s more CO2 than what the atmosphere originally started with prior to the industrial revolution.

Reply to  ATheoK
August 3, 2022 12:52 pm

Nature is still absorbing CO2
All CO2 increases, therefore, are manmade — up an estimated +50% since the 1800s.

I can’t correct stupid, so I won’t try any harder than my logical correct statement above, supported by an estimated 99.9% of scientists on this planet, based on my 25 years of climate science reading, finding only one scientist who claimed CO2 increases were almost entirely manmade in those 25 years. One crackpot.

TallDave
August 2, 2022 4:39 pm

the good news for them is no one can know for sure what will happen since most of the post-1979 warming signal is probably noise

the bad news is the temperature future they’re predicting is no more likely than the 2.5 degrees warming Hansen predicted we would get from 1988 till now

Last edited 4 months ago by TallDave
Rud Istvan
August 2, 2022 5:24 pm

As said on this pause topic several times, I think there are much more robust ways to discredit the warmunists. The pause relies on a statistical argument relative to model warming outputs, themselves suspect. What warmunists cannot refute is stuff like the following:

  1. The modeled tropical troposphere hotspot does not exist, casting doubt on all model projections.
  2. Observational (energy budget) ECS is half modeled, and no cause for concern.
  3. Models assume ‘CO2 control knob’, when the warming from circa 1925-1940 is the same as that from circa 1975-2000. Yet even the IPCC AR4 SPM said the former period could NOT have been CO2. Models cannot math model convective phenomena on realistic scales due to the CFL constraint on numerical solutions to PDEs. So the are parameterized, tuned to best hindcast. But that automatically drags in the Narural/anthropogenic attribution problem.
  4. models projected complete loss of summer Arctic ice by about 2014-2016. Didn’t happen.
  5. Models projected accelerating sea level rise. Hasn’t happened.

These are easier ways than ‘pause’ to show the warmunists just wrong.

Loydo
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 2, 2022 10:12 pm

Show some evidence that any of these are not just your skewed opinion.

aussiecol
Reply to  Loydo
August 3, 2022 12:38 am

Maybe you could show some evidence where he is wrong…?

Loydo
Reply to  aussiecol
August 3, 2022 9:05 pm

Carl Sagan said: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Not: “Dealing with crackpot claims should be like playing whack-a-mole.”

Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 3, 2022 3:30 am

What warmunists cannot refute is 60+ years of 100% wrong predictions
of various types of environmental doom. After all, “climate change” means CAGW now, and CAGW is just a prediction, not reality — a prediction that has been wrong for at least 50 years so far.

I prefer the term Climate Howlers rather than warmunists, which is too offensive — the Climate Howlers are not all Marxists.

Also Computer Games, rather than climate models.

And Nut Zero, rather than New Zero.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 8:17 am

RG said: “What warmunists cannot refute is 60+ years of 100% wrong predictions”

Not a single prediction was right? BTW…how do you objectively define right and wrong in the context of a prediction anyway?

Reply to  bdgwx
August 3, 2022 12:57 pm

Predictions are reflected in climate model simulations, which average 2x faster warming than actually happened since 1979, and even worse if they are back tested to 1940, when CO2 emissions first began rising significantly, as the world pulled out an economic depression.

CO2 emissions did begin in 1975 when warming began.
They happened from 1940 to 1975 too, when there was significant global cooling, now “revised away” by the smarmy government bureaucrat “scientists” that you worship

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 1:03 pm

First, I think you have me confused with someone else. If I worship anything it is evidence; not scientists.

Second, do you think the prediction that the global average temperature would increase was wrong? Do you think the prediction that the cryosphere would lose mass was wrong? Do you think the prediction that the stratosphere would cool was wrong?

Third, It doesn’t look like climate model simulations average 2x faster than actually happened since 1979 to me. CMIP5 shows +0.23 C/decade whereas the 8 dataset composite is +0.19 C/decade. Since it wasn’t 2x higher does that mean it is right? Or is it still wrong? Can you provide an example of a prediction of the global average temperature on a monthly basis since 1979 that you feel is right?

comment image

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
JamesD
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 4, 2022 9:14 am

I support “all of the above” including trolling the warmists with the pause.

Geoff Sherrington
August 2, 2022 6:30 pm

Over the Australian land mass, UAH lower troposphere temperatures have now reached an easy-to-remember TEN YEARS of no warming in the linear trend. No resident Aussie child under 10 years of age has ever felt the savagery and existential threat of global warming!!!
Why to teachers tell fables to our school children?
Geoff S

Nullius in Verba
August 2, 2022 7:23 pm

To avoid accusations of cherrypicking, this plot shows the ordinary-least-squares trend for every possible start and end date. The data is Roy Spencer’s UAH MSU series from 1978 to date. You can judge for yourself whether those pauses are real features of the data or just cherrypicked end points.

comment image

Last edited 4 months ago by Nullius in Verba
bdgwx
Reply to  Nullius in Verba
August 2, 2022 8:28 pm

That is an awesome visualization!

Joe Born
Reply to  Nullius in Verba
August 3, 2022 1:26 am

I’d say you safely avoided cherry-picking.

Perhaps I’m at the other end of the spectrum, but I like to look at specifics. They say we’re going to burn up, so I’m interested in the trends in summer daily high temperatures here in central Indiana.

The raw data from a local station don’t seem alarming to me.

scratch.png
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Nullius in Verba
August 3, 2022 1:31 am

I can see a kid with a red hat, holding his hands in front of himself, a cyclops dog, a strange clown, a bat and Mario. Not much else, unfortunately.

Nullius in Verba
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 3, 2022 9:13 am

Can you see the chain of black rectangles in the background running up along the diagonal? Those are the pauses. The two ‘bow tie’ shapes between them are the jumps when El Nino peaked and dumped hot water into the global ocean circulation. The question is – is the red at the top-left/bottom-right corners solely the result of those bow ties, or is there a background red trend they’re superimposed on?

paul courtney
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 3, 2022 12:36 pm

Mr. Wanderer: I’m told Truman Capote sees a baby’s arm holding an apple. His tunnel vision in that respect looks just like a CliSci.

markl
August 2, 2022 7:29 pm

So if there are steady/linear rises in CO2 concentration how does one reconcile that with pauses in temperature? Shouldn’t the temperature rise steadily along with the CO2 since that’s what’s causing the rise?

bdgwx
Reply to  markl
August 2, 2022 8:33 pm

CO2 is not the only thing modulating the UAH TLT temperature. ENSO and volcanic aerosols force the bulk of the variability. CO2 forces the bulk of the trend.

comment image

Carlo, Monte
August 2, 2022 8:30 pm

As a 40-year member of the IEEE, I now get garbage like this in my mailbox. Recalling when the IEEE was a professional society instead of a left-wing advocacy mouthpiece, I now need to consider if it is time to walk away.

Screen Shot 2022-08-02 at 9.27.19 PM.jpg
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 3, 2022 6:37 pm

Yeah, it’s probably time to quit them.

Ron Ginzler
August 2, 2022 9:22 pm

Hmm, I don’t recall any leather motorcycle jackets in Lawrence of Arabia, except, perhaps the one Lawrence died in, in England. Although leather is a great insulator, it would seem that it would have to be loosely worn to provide any relief from the heat. Perhaps Your Lordship would provide a thermodynamic explanation without compromising his great pickup line, as we say in America.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Ron Ginzler
August 3, 2022 1:33 am

Yes, loose robes, preferably white, have always been found to be more effective. I like my sweat to evaporate, too, which it can’t under heavy unventilated clothing.

Last edited 4 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Ron Ginzler
August 4, 2022 7:57 am

Indeed, unless one is on the bike (in which event the passing air, even in 45-Celsius temperature, will keep the rider cool), one leaves the jacket on but open. The jacket prevents evaporation from occurring too fast, so that a constant and gentle cooling caused by the steady evaporation is the result. It is, of course, counter-intuitive, so few are willing to try it: but, here in rural Kent, during the 40 C heatwave, the only person among our large household who did not complain of the heat was me, because I had – as I have today, in 29 C indoor temperatures – a tweed jacket on but open. Not so good as a leather jacket, but a lot cooler than no jacket at all.

TheFinalNail
August 2, 2022 9:54 pm

7 years 11 months = 95 months.

There are 430 consecutive, overlapping 95-month periods in the UAH_TLT data set.

Of these, 123 (~29%) have a linear trend that is equal to or lower than this most recent one.

The warming trend over the whole data set remains +0.13C/dec.

This tells us about the predictive value of 95-month periods in the UAH data.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 4, 2022 7:59 am

The furtively pseudonymous Putin agent “TheFinalNail” has, as usual, misunderstood the obvious. Since long Pauses are a feature of the recent temperature record, they provide an easily-comprehensible indication of the fact that global warming is not happening at anything like the predicted rate.

Tom
August 2, 2022 10:05 pm

Monckton mentions Roy Spencer’s model predicting doubling of pre-industrial CO2 during 2090. Observational estimates of ECS between 1.4 and 2.3 suggest only limited warming will occur by that time. This is the low end of the warming range that Charney (1979) estimated for ECS and half as warm as the 2021 IPCC 4.5 degree scenario Spencer mentions. A very cool projection.

Reply to  Tom
August 3, 2022 3:35 am

‘Observational estimates of ECS between 1.4 and 2.3’

These estimates assume the observations are accurate and CO2 is the only climate change variable — this is a worst case estimate for CO2, including known and unknown feedbacks. I suspect the TCS estimate starts in 1975, since there was no warming in the 1940to 1975 period, but there was increasing CO2, so 1940 to 1975 usually gets ignored by the Climate Howlers.

Coeur de Lion
August 2, 2022 11:28 pm

Don’t forget the 1940 to1970 30 year pause

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
August 3, 2022 3:36 am

Everyone forgets.
It was more like 1940 to 1975

M Courtney
August 3, 2022 12:28 am

The BBC is a good thing, in principle. The UK is a small, anglophone media market. Left to market forces US product would squeeze out UK product entirely as the costs of manufacture would be spread over a larger consumer base.

This happened to UK film. This did not happen to UK paperbacks or pop music as the cost of manufacture is so much lower.
This did not happen to UK TV because of the BBC License Fee. The UK avoided total cultural colonisation by use of an hypothecated tax to preserve UK popular culture.

Nowadays, TV is less important than the internet, culturally. And the US websites dominate the older generation; Chinese websites watch the kids. The answer isn’t merely to surrender. It is to re-deploy our cultural weapon – the BBC – to the internet frontier. And arm it with more money.

In practice, it is clear that the BBC is scientifically illiterate and thus unable to contribute to half of the cultural world. But that is a flaw in execution, not concept.

Last edited 4 months ago by MCourtney
Reply to  M Courtney
August 4, 2022 8:02 am

The BBC is a thoroughly bad thing in principle, because its very heavily-subsidized market dominance makes it a focus of power – i.e., a target for both Russian and Chinese disinformation. It has been captured by Communism. The only thing that will now work is outright defunding. If it had to pay its own way, it would collapse under the weight of its Stakhanovite bureaucracy.

Nigel Sherratt
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 5, 2022 5:00 am

MoB is, of course, completely correct. Nuking from orbit is the only solution. BBC’s stance on Thermageddon, C-1984 and Brexit would be quite enough and that’s just scratching the surface. Many thanks MoB as ever for yet another splendid contribution and the patient attention to the comments. Response to ‘Griff’ is my particular favourite this time. It’s the only language they understand.

Alan the Brit
August 3, 2022 12:48 am

Welcome to the Holocene Inter-Glacial!!! Still, it’s not as warm as the previous four Inter-Glacials dating back nearly 400,000 years, but hey ho, perhaps some of these warmistas have lived through those warmer times & know best, perhaps, (sarc)!!! Still can’t understand why the ONLY solution to alleged Manmade Globul Warming is the creation & establishment of a one-world globul guvment, claiming ownership of ALL the world’s resources, whereby they can distribute said resources to the world as they see fit!!! Good old fashioned Socialism/Communism never dies, it does’nt even fade away!!! Agenda 21 anyone???

ATheoK
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 3, 2022 8:13 am

Nor as warm as it was in the Holocene before the LIA (Little Ice Age).

Bruce Cobb
August 3, 2022 3:28 am

Well I see that the usual suspects have raced in, “misunderstood” the Pause and what it means, and then soundly thrashed their misunderstanding of it. Good job, Pause Deniers.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 3, 2022 3:40 am

What does this pause, one of 123 of the same duration in UAH, have that the other pauses didn’t?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 3, 2022 6:32 am

Another “misunderstanding” of the Pause? Really? You people really need a new playbook.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 3, 2022 7:12 am

Oh, this is a special pause, is it? It’s not like all the rest, lol!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 3, 2022 8:34 am

When you’re in a hole, just keep digging. LOL!

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 4, 2022 8:05 am

TheFInal Nail, a shill for Putin, fails to grasp that long and frequent pauses are a readily-understandable method of showing those unfamiliar with probability and statistics that the rate of global warming is a whole lot less than had originally been, or is still being, predicted.

bdgwx
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 3, 2022 8:23 am

It is somewhat interesting that a trivial 4-component (CO2, ENSO, AMO, volcanic) model predicts every pause lasting 5 years or longer including the most recent. What sets the recent pause apart from the others? What makes this time different?

comment image

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  bdgwx
August 3, 2022 8:51 am

Can you say “red herring argument”?
I knew you could.

bdgwx
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 3, 2022 9:03 am

This article is primarily focused on the recent pause. No?

Reply to  bdgwx
August 4, 2022 8:09 am

Perhaps the furtively pseudonymous “bdgwx” would prefer us to concentrate on the Pause of 18 years 9 months at the beginning of the 21st century.

Since the current Pause is by definition the longest period with a zero trend leading up to the present, it may perhaps be possible even for bdgwx to understand that the head posting is indeed chiefly about the current Pause.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 4, 2022 10:58 am

I don’t really have a preference either way. I’m happy to discuss any of the pauses you choose.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Anthony
August 3, 2022 3:49 am

I love the fact that most of the climate warming by Co2 brigade, want to go back to the temperatures of 1760 at the start on the Industrial Revolution. They want to go back to London having three foot of snow evey winter and the River Thames freezing so hard that you could dance, have fires and sing on it. They want to go back to 1776 when Valley Forge had ground, frozen solid, down to well over 2 feet. They want to go back to the temperatures where your home heating bill would treble (oops, sorry that’s already happened in Europe, especially London) Yep, go back there but don’t take me….

griff
August 3, 2022 4:25 am

The ‘pause’ from one set of the multiple times adjusted proxy troposphere readings….

Reply to  griff
August 4, 2022 8:10 am

Don’t whine.

Redge
Reply to  griff
August 5, 2022 5:03 am

As opposed to global warming from several sets of multiple temperature readings and the unvalidated computer games

Coach Springer
August 3, 2022 4:43 am

Perhaps overly optimistic about economic reality intervening in a positive way. I see chaos, not climate religion coming to its senses. And there are 60% believers in fear-based government with critical thinking banned.

Reply to  Coach Springer
August 4, 2022 8:11 am

Do not underestimate the power of the truth. Magna est veritas, et praevalet, as the apocryphal book of Esdras so trenchantly puts it. In the splendid language of the King James Bible, which ranks alongside Shakespeare as the apotheosis of English literature, Great is truth, and mighty above all things.

John Shotsky
August 3, 2022 6:26 am

I predict that the ‘pause’ will lengthen to around 60 years. Sorry, I won’t be around to see that, but in case no one noticed, climate cycles between warmer and cooler, on a time basis of about 65-70 years. Once it quits warming, it begins cooling, and that lasts from the top of one warmer cycle to the bottom of the next half cycle (cooler), some 30+ years of cooling (or pause, if you prefer). I only regret that I won’t be around to see the headlines of the coming ice age, as we had in the 70’s. That, like everything else, will happen again. They’ll be talking about 1000 year cold spells then…

Christopher Bortz
August 3, 2022 7:58 am

Lord Mockton, isn’t “heatwave” defined as 5 or more days of extreme heat relative to the location? Two hot days, I thought, does not a heatwave make

JamesD
August 3, 2022 8:00 am

A question for Lord Monckton of Brenchley:

Given the error you discovered in their maths, is it possible by using a starting average temperature of 0C (zero), to get their model to predict infinite warming? I think it would be quite illustrative of their major flaw.

Reply to  JamesD
August 4, 2022 8:13 am

No, one can’t usefully go back to zero Celsius. And Their model does not predict infinite warming: merely a lot more warming than is physically consistent with the real-world data.

Ireneusz Palmowski
August 3, 2022 8:09 am

If La Niña remains weak, there will be no strong El Niño after solar maximum because too little heat will be accumulated under the surface of the western Pacific and the subsurface Kelvin wave will not reach the Niño 1.2 region.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202208.gif
comment image
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
August 3, 2022 8:15 am

Are we past the first solar peak in this cycle?
comment image
Heliospheric Current Sheet
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif

JamesD
August 3, 2022 8:23 am

The best part of these “pause” articles is reading the comments and see all the alarmist get triggered when all Lord Moncton is doing is posting an observation. He hasn’t changed his prediction: somewhere around 1C of warming per century.

bdgwx
Reply to  JamesD
August 3, 2022 9:12 am

It might be interesting to note that the method Monckton uses to assess the pause period also says that over the last 15 years and 6 months the rate of warming has accelerated to twice the overall rate at +0.26 C/decade. That’s just an observation as well.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Reply to  JamesD
August 3, 2022 1:01 pm

Lord Moncton of Baloney is posting a short term observation, without long term UAH context, that very likely has no predictive ability. Almost a total waste of bandwidth.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 2:25 pm

Stop whining, this cherry picking canard is threadbare.

Gyan1
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 3, 2022 3:04 pm

Short term trends are defined by inflection points, they are cherry picked for that reason.

The pauses show how natural variability dominates the tiny human forcing.

It is very likely that nothing has predictive ability for future climate states. Even Milankovitch cycles don’t always produce ice ages. The future can’t be known.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 4, 2022 8:18 am

The spiteful Richard Greene, if he really thought these articles were not worth reading, would not spend so much of his excessive free time commenting thereupon.

And it is factually incorrect to state, as the spiteful Richard Greene states, that no long-term UAH context is provided.

If he would get his kindergarten mistress to read him the head posting – no, that is too advanced for him – to show him the pictures, he would see the graph of UAH temperature since 1990, the year of IPCC’s first ASSessment Report.

Reply to  JamesD
August 4, 2022 8:15 am

JamesD is right: there is really no reason to expect much more than 1-1.4 K warming this century, and that will be net-beneficial.

Ireneusz Palmowski
August 3, 2022 9:33 am

The Earth’s temperature is constant within certain limits due to the height of the troposphere, which in winter above the 60th parallel drops to an average of only about 6 km. 
comment image
comment image

Bill Everett
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
August 3, 2022 10:56 am

The previous warming period, which began in the mid-1970’s, ends in 2004. The current pause begins in that same year. This aligns with the pattern of warming and pause periods in evidence since the 1880’s. El Nino and La Nina periods are a distraction from proper analysis of the pattern of temperature change and should be ignored during such analysis..

JCM
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
August 3, 2022 12:59 pm

The structure of the troposphere is coupled to the atmospheric boundary layer.

The boundary layer is tightly coupled to surface properties. The height of the tropopause is related to the depth of the boundary layer.

Boundary layer depth relates to thermal properties such as sensible heat flux and the intensity of wind shear.

Over arid terrain with high surface temperature the boundary layer is wide. Over moist vegetated terrain the boundary layer is relatively narrower.

There is an immense amount of moist static energy (MSE) over moist vegetated landscapes. A shallower PBL with bigger MSE implies a bigger MSE per unit of PBL, which is supportive to an increase of potential for convective development, moist convection, and moisture convergence.

China has conducted extensive surveys of the planetary boundary layer in efforts to characterize aerosol pollution and dissipative mechanisms.

China has observed up to 8m/yr increase in boundary layer depth relating to urbanization.

Over the agricultural landscape boundary layer depth has increased up 4m/yr due to soil erosion.

Maximum terrestrial boundary layer depth with urbanized landscape 1 million km2 = 8m/yr
Maximum terrestrial boundary layer depth over agriculture landscape 48 million km2 = 4m/yr.

Weighted average boundary layer increase = 4.1m/yr
(48×4)+(1×8) / (48+1) = 4.08163265

Roughly 50% of the landscape is urban and or agricultural.

Weighted total terrestrial boundary layer depth increase = 4.1m/yr(0.5) = 2.05m/yr.

During one century of development boundary layer depth has increased up to 100 x 2.05m/yr = ~200 metres averaged over the terrestrial landscape globally.

According to realclimate archives, there has been an upward trend in the simply proxy for emission height in the reanalyses. This trend they say is consistent with the surface warming with the observed lapse rate approximately -5K/km.

+200m in boundary layer depth is thus associated with +1K at the surface.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  JCM
August 3, 2022 1:59 pm

The structure of the troposphere is closely related to the vertical temperature gradient, which is constant in dry air up to the tropopause ( at the tropopause the gradient decreases rapidly until the lowest temperature) and variable in moist air depending on the amount of water vapor in the air. Warm dry air loses temperature faster than moist air.
comment image

JCM
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
August 3, 2022 2:29 pm

Land surface modification by humanity is associated with annual average increase in boundary layer depth, increasing temperature, reduced relative humidity, and reduced cloud cover over all seasons. In climate model conceptualizations these processes use the sum notation lambda. It is a key assumption that humanity has no direct impact on lambda (feedback parameter to total forcing). This assumption does not hold.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.744255/full?fbclid=IwAR3Pq62VYk4sxFaN-70MGayT-neK45D4BsVnJd3vKWMPFTL3RNSQxT3VKUk

JCM
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
August 3, 2022 2:53 pm

Image depicting regional dynamics with daily maximum boundary layer height (depth; daytime), and minimum (nocturnal). All season increase in BLH is observed.

Daily nocturnal BLH (BLH minimum) shows net reduction, enhancing downward turbulent flux of heat. Net turbulent flux always opposes the direction of net radiation. Turbulent flux is directed downwards at night while net radiation is upwards. Daytime is opposite under sun.

Daytime BLH increase is associated with increased stability and cloud reduction. In sum it relates to increased ratio of sensible heat flux vs latent heat in the perturbed landscape.

Sensible heat tends to get recirculated in the turbulent boundary layer increasing nighttime heating. Latent fluxes are associated with total surface cooling and cloud formation, and increased buoyancy/convection. The liquid and solid condensing water aloft emitting full spectrum IR.

This is lambda in action.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-021-04918-5

The image caption reads: (ad) The seasonal patterns of daily maximum (shade; m) and daily minimum (contour; m) height of planetary boundary layer for the warming mode. (e) The PC time series of the warming mode (red curve) together with the linear trend (black line). Contour interval is 5 m (blue < 0 < red). The blue curves represent the PC time series for January and July and the blue dotted lines their respective trends.

Untitled.png
Last edited 4 months ago by JCM
JCM
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
August 3, 2022 3:04 pm

If your interpretation is muddled, review surface/boundary layer dynamics fundamentals with particular emphasis on turbulent flux. https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/ats761/Lectures/04.SurfaceEnergyBudget.pdf

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  JCM
August 4, 2022 3:26 am

It is clear that population density and infrastructure will punctuate increases in surface temperature with decreases in green space. Plants absorb some of the sun’s radiation and the surface heats up less than concrete and asphalt.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
August 3, 2022 1:47 pm

If Earth were not a water planet and there were no water vapor in the air, temperatures on Earth would be almost as extreme as on planets without an atmosphere. This is very evident in the Sahara, and also during La Nina, when the tropical Pacific produces less water vapor. Heat waves in Europe are not unusual.

bdgwx
August 3, 2022 11:54 am

CMoB said: “That fact is that the rate of global warming predicted by Hansen in 1988 and then by IPCC in 1990 is simply not occurring. Nothing like. In 1990 IPCC had confidently predicted warming equivalent to 0.34 K/decade in the period to 2030. Well, we are now already well into 2022, almost a third of a century after that over-excited prediction, and the observed warming was not the 1.1 K that ought to have occurred by now but just 0.45 K:”

I’m going to post the same content here that I did the other times you misrepresented the IPCC.

According to the IPPC FAR these are the scenarios they considered with the level of CO2, CH4, and CFCs as of 2020 clearly indicated.

comment image

And this is the prediction for each scenario.

comment image

As you can see the scenario most closely matching the actual emission pathway is scenario C in which 0.55 C of warming was predicted from 1990 to 2020. HadCRUT shows about 0.65 C of warming.

The IPCC did not predict 0.34 K/decade of warming. They predicted about +0.18 C/decade. The observed rate of warming over that same period is +0.21 C/decade. The IPCC’s prediction was not “over-excited”. If anything the IPCC actually underestimated the warming.

If you keep misrepresenting the IPCC FAR prediction at some point I’ll be forced to believe your rhetoric rises to disinformation.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Gyan1