The New Pause Lengthens to 8 Years

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The New Pause, having paused a month ago, has now lengthened again: this time to exactly eight years. As always, the Pause is calculated as the longest period for which the least-squares linear-regression trend up to the most recent month for which the UAH global mean surface temperature anomaly is available is zero.

The trend on the entire dataset during the 526 months from December 1978 to September 2022 is 0.59 C°, equivalent to only 1.34 C°/century. So slow a rate of warming is well within the natural variability of the climate, and is proving net-beneficial.

The New Pause has grown to fully eight years in length at a most embarrassing point for true-believers: for the cost to the West of the economically suicidal policies that they have long advocated is now becoming all too painfully apparent, just as it is also ever more evident that the warming since 1990 is well below half the midrange prediction made by IPCC that year.

4.7 61 votes
Article Rating
309 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 5, 2022 10:23 pm

New pause on higher level… come on!

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 5, 2022 10:36 pm

Declining trend typical of reaching a natural peak prior to a downturn.

Mike
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 5, 2022 11:45 pm

Yes.

DeFries and 65 year cycles.JPG
dodgy geezer
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2022 12:06 am

Interesting. Where does this graph come from?

Reply to  dodgy geezer
October 6, 2022 11:57 am

the bowels of a misinformed data analyst

Mike
Reply to  dodgy geezer
October 6, 2022 4:39 pm

Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss

ATheoK
Reply to  dodgy geezer
October 6, 2022 6:20 pm

Says CRU in the title.

Steve Case
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2022 2:08 am
b.nice
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2022 2:28 am

Urban temperatures, which that graph vaguely represents, (except with more warming adjusted in).

…. will not drop as much as the rest of the globe.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2022 10:16 am

Is the hypothesis that 1890 – 230 = 1660 was as warm globally as it is today?

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 6:25 pm

That is not my hypothesis because I do not have the information required to test it and neither do you.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2022 6:36 pm

Who’s hypothesis is it and how do we test it?

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 10:39 pm

It (that the temperature and solar cycles matching) has already been tested. See the video.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
October 7, 2022 8:09 am

I watched the video you posted. He predicted that 2007 would be a local peak with a local trough around 2035. The test isn’t looking good so far.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  bdgwx
October 9, 2022 12:15 am

What is not looking good so far, what is in fact a terrible record of predictive success, is the compendium of every single utterance from every Warmista who ever spoke or wrote anything on the entire subject.

The only reason anyone can look at that chart of UAH TLT satellite time series, and see human caused global warming, is if they have no idea what occurred prior to the period of time preceding this graph.

See here:

HADCRUT plus UAH.PNG
Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Gary Pearse
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2022 1:05 pm

Before Jim Hansen (head of GISS) retired in 2007 (?) the record high was still 1937. Even the 1998 super El Niño did not set a new record. On the eve of retirement, Jim pushed the stubborn 1937 and adjacent years temperatures down over 0.5°C, getting rid of the problems of the drastic early run up to the 20th century high occurring while CO2 was at background levels, and the 40 year slide down in temperatures that created “The Ice Age Cometh” panic.

Leonard Nimoy on the coming ice age

In reality, the run-up of temperatures in 1980s and 90s was recovery from this deep cold spell, after which we had an 18 year “Dreaded Pause”!

Having been born in the 30s heat, and hearing the stories from family and their friends who were preoccupied for a couple of decades with this, the horrific drought, crop failures and economic depression, and having lived through the “Ice Age Cometh”. I’m not easy to bullshit with gubmint graphs and “The Science”.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 6, 2022 1:12 pm

The main link to Leonard Nimoy’s TV production has been obscured by the totalitarians. I wonder why! But here it is.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ZDnSbNIYs

Mike
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 6, 2022 6:24 pm

”Having been born in the 30s heat, and hearing the stories from family and their friends who were preoccupied for a couple of decades with this, the horrific drought, crop failures and economic depression, and having lived through the “Ice Age Cometh”. I’m not easy to bullshit with gubmint graphs and “The Science”.”

Whether the 30’s heat and/or it’s intensity was concentrated in the NH or not remains an open question but the point here is to show there was no co2 signal in the analysis and that everything points to a peaking (and now flattening out) of the 65 year cycle and probably others as well on top of that.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 9, 2022 12:34 am

You are spot on Gary.
James Hansen, the Climate Chiropractor!
Here is an excellent summary of how badly the time series of historical temperature data has been distorted.
It is not the whole story of the alterations to recorded temperature data, but it is a good place to start for anyone not familiar with how bad the lies have become.

Prior to the advent of global warming alarmism, everyone knew perfectly well that as of the late 1980s, there had been no overall warming in the global temperature record for the entirely of the historical record. By 1980, all of the 20th century warming had been erased by a 30-40 year global cooling trend.
See here:
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?src=pm

By this reckoning, the 0.0 line on the UAH graph in the headline post is very close to where the global temperature stood at the end of the Little Ice Age. As can be plainly seen, we are very close to that temperature right now.
By considering the totality of the evidence, it is very easy to make the case that there has been little or no warming of the Earth for over 120 years.
Global warming is ALL man made…conjured up out of thin air by gaslighting and outright data manipulation and fabrication.

See here:
Alterations To The US Temperature Record | Real Climate Science

NYT as of late 1980s, No Global warming.PNG
dodgy geezer
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 6, 2022 12:04 am

Exactly! The AMO was rising during the 1990s – now it is falling. Expect a reprise of the 1970s Ice Age scare sometime around the 2040s…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  dodgy geezer
October 6, 2022 6:01 am

“Expect a reprise of the 1970s Ice Age scare”

That’s what I’m thinking. That’s the pattern from the past: The climate warms for a few decades, and then it cools for a few decades, and then it warms again for a few decades and the highpoints and the lowpoints remain within certain bounds.

Of course, you won’t see that pattern looking at a bastardized Hockey Stick chart because the Hockey Stick charts were created to specifically erase the cyclical nature of the Earth’s climate.

And now we have millions of dupes thinking the Hockey Stick chart represents reality. Propaganda works.

Walter Horsting
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 6, 2022 6:18 am

The Holocene has been cooling for the past 4,000 years on a steady downward trend line.

Few know how lucky we are to live during a Mild Thaw up out of the coldest era of the past 8,000 years called the Little Ice Agehttps://businessdevelopmentinternational.biz/climate-change/

Climate last 10,000 years - Copy.jpg
Phil.
Reply to  Walter Horsting
October 6, 2022 8:38 am

Faulty graph, the x-axis is offset by 50 years.

bdgwx
Reply to  Walter Horsting
October 6, 2022 10:15 am

That graph does not including the last 170 years of warming. Also, whoever made that graph did not understand that “before present” is defined in academic literature as 1950.

mkelly
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 1:18 pm

So who put the date 2000 AD after years before present? If he meant the graph right side X axis was year 2000 then it can’t be off by 170 years.

Phil tell that to Alley. And does that change the idea that it has been cooling for a long time?

The reference is noted.

Phil.
Reply to  mkelly
October 6, 2022 6:26 pm
bdgwx
Reply to  mkelly
October 6, 2022 7:08 pm

mkelley said: “So who put the date 2000 AD after years before present?”

I don’t know. What we do know is that the graph was created by someone who is not familiar with the BP standard in paleoclimate research set at 1950.

mkelley said: ” If he meant the graph right side X axis was year 2000 then it can’t be off by 170 years.”

The graph is a plot of this data. The data ends around 1855 which is 95 years before 1950; not 2000. The x-axis labels are off by 50.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Hivemind
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 3:58 am

‘defined in academic literature as 1950’
Maybe so, but it’s clearly defined in the graph as 2000, which more usefully reflects the date the graph was created.

bdgwx
Reply to  Hivemind
October 7, 2022 7:15 am

Hivermind said: “Maybe so, but it’s clearly defined in the graph as 2000,”

That’s what makes the graph wrong.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 6, 2022 11:58 am

there are no temperature records that show you inagined cycles

b.nice
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 12:29 pm

BS.. there are. !

All the raw NH records show the AMO

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 5:55 pm

Of course, there are:

Here’s one, Hansen 1999:

comment image

See the cyclical nature of the U.S. chart? See how it warmed by about 2.0C from the 1910’s to the 1930’s and how it cooled by about 2.0C from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, and then it warms again from the 1980’s to 1998, and then it cools again, and warms again to 2016, and now it’s cooling again after the 2016 highpoint, Cyclical.

Seems like there was a chart in your book that showed a cyclical nature to the temperatures. I’ll have to look at your book again. I recall asking you about whether there was a copy of the chart you showed that I could get, but you never replied.

And of course, there are all sorts of regional charts that show the cyclical nature of the Earth’s climate. They show the temperatures warm for a while and then they cool for a while, and they also show that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, and they show this is a worldwide phenomenon.

Here’s about 300 of them:

http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/16/almost-300-graphs-undermine-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warmth/#sthash.neDvp33z.hWRS8nJ5.dpbs

I’ll get back to you on that chart in your book.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  dodgy geezer
October 6, 2022 8:58 am

Yeah, but this is the first AMO cycle that transferred trillions of dollars from some pockets to others before it became obvious in plots and graphs of the curvilinear path. No doubt the money train will resist even the obvious at that point.

Reply to  dodgy geezer
October 6, 2022 11:57 am

ther was no ice age scare

Graemethecat
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 12:23 pm
b.nice
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 6, 2022 12:29 pm

Mosh has been corrupted by BEST..

He HAS to lie about everything now.

Mike
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 4:47 pm

You are getting worse dude.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 4:55 pm

Whatever happened to you Mosher?

Mike
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
October 6, 2022 6:30 pm

He’s been watching too much YouTube.

Herbert
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 7, 2022 12:09 am

Steven,
Read the well researched Angus McFarlane post here on 19 November, 2018, “The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth”.
Some 65% of the peer-reviewed Climate papers that offered an opinion, published between 1965 and 1979 predicted that the global cooling seen at the time would continue.
It is a clear and factual rebuttal of “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” in BAMS written by ThomasPeterson, Connolly & Fleck( Peterson, Connolly &Fleck,2008).
That paper is nonsense.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 9, 2022 12:38 am

Back on the alarmist payroll for you, eh Steven?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 9, 2022 12:48 am

I am not sure how old you are, Steven, but I do know that you are either lying, if you are as old as you look, or simply completely wrong.

But I have to say, if you are too young know you are dead wrong, you are not aging well.

Bob Wentworth
Reply to  dodgy geezer
October 6, 2022 5:20 pm

In the 1970s some of the media went nuts about that, but I don’t think it’s a fair analogy insofar as the “Ice Age scare” was very far from approaching being a scientific consensus.

Peterson (2008) did a survey of 68 scientific studies on “global cooling” from 1965-1979 and found that only 10% predicted cooling, while 62% predicted warming, and 28% were undecided.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bob Wentworth
October 6, 2022 6:27 pm

It seemed like every time I turned around in the 1970’s, somebody was speculating that the Earth might be entering a new ice age.

I read most of the literature. I kept expecting these scientists to show some evidence that humans were causing the Earth to cool, but they never, not once, ever showed any evidence that humans were affecting the climate at that time.

Then we get to the 1980’s and temperatures start warming up and the place to be among alarmists then is promoting human-caused global warming.

But, by that time, I was thoroughly disillusioned with the human-caused global cooling scientists, claiming they had evidence when they did not, and I just started out skeptical about human-caused global warming, and to this day I have seen no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change whether it be making things cooler or making things hotter.

There’s no evidence for any of this hogwash. These alarmists have spent decades trying to find some evidence and they can’t find anything. It’s one of the biggest clown shows in history.

Consensus be damed! Consensus doesn’t mean those involved are not wrong.

Herbert
Reply to  Bob Wentworth
October 7, 2022 12:32 am

Bob,
See my response to Steven Mosher on this thread.
Read the demolition of Peterson (2008) by Angus McFarlane here on 19 November 2018, The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth”.
Andy May deals with this at “Chapter 6: Facts and Theories- Global Cooling” in “Politics and Climate Change”.
As Andy states, the Peterson et al (2008) paper carefully cherry picked 71 papers and claimed only seven papers between 1965 and 1979 disagreed with the “consensus” position that global warming would occur in the future.
Kenneth Richard at NoTricksZone researched this and expanded the time frame from 1960 to 1989, as noted by Angus McFarlane.
Richard found that of 285 papers, 156 discussed the cooling since 1940 and predicted future cooling. Seven tried to show that CO2 might be causing the cooling.
In the same way alarmists fudged numbers to show a 97% consensus, the also fudged the global cooling consensus to show the contrary.

Bob Wentworth
Reply to  Herbert
October 8, 2022 9:26 pm

Thanks for the info.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 9, 2022 12:06 am

Declining trend typical of reaching a natural peak prior to a downturn.”
Exactly!

It looks very much like a downtrend began some years ago.

The visual impression of the entire chart will be drastically altered if there is a further decline of a couple of tenths of a degree.
At that point, the cyclical pattern will be plainly evident.

PCman999
Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 5, 2022 10:37 pm

8 years of ever increasing CO2, methane, NO2, etc., emissions and yet we’re back where we started – the value of the pause is that it points out this contradiction to the CO2-Thermostat religion.

If we had better proxy data, Christopher would have justification for Pauses going back 1000, 2000, 3500ish, 8000 years, and even back to the Cretaceous period.

Windy Wilson
Reply to  PCman999
October 5, 2022 11:37 pm

Give him a chance! He hasn’t yet begun to smooth the data to remove in-year anomalies that mess up the data!

b.nice
Reply to  Windy Wilson
October 6, 2022 2:29 am

You want to see really messed up once-was data.. Go to GISS, BEST etc etc.

Mike
Reply to  Windy Wilson
October 6, 2022 6:33 pm

 in-year anomalies”

Jezzuz.

Reply to  PCman999
October 6, 2022 4:25 am

PCman999 makes a most interesting point about the true Pause length. The best proxy for temperature change over the past 1000 years is sea-level change (Grinsted et al. 2009). In the medieval warm period, sea level was 8 inches above today’s level. In the little ice age it was 8 inches below. Since there has been no trend in sea level, it is likely that there has been no trend in temperature for 1000 years. Existential threat, forsooth!

Javier
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 5:27 am

Since 7,000 years ago, every millennium has had a lower temperature average than the previous one. That includes the second millennium AD (1001-2000 AD). I have no doubt that this 2001-3000 AD millennium will have a lower average temperature than the past one. The Holocene interglacial is slowly approaching its end. It will be humankind’s greatest test ever. When the Eemian ended our ancestors were not anatomically modern humans and were a tropical species.

Bob boder
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 5:29 am

And a dowsed trend for 8000 years

R Stevenson
Reply to  PCman999
October 7, 2022 9:30 am

Relentless temperature rise challenged quite rightly by 1000 year pauses; how has it come to this sorry pitch with the demonisation of CO2 to be scrubbed from the atmosphere as a dangerous pollutant. When in fact in combination with water and photosynthesis forms cellulose molecules to build plant cell walls which sustain life on Earth

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  R Stevenson
October 9, 2022 12:54 am

More than cellulose molecules.
Every single molecule of every living thing that exists in the entire biosphere has as it biochemical starting point molecules of glucose, created in plants and other photosynthesizing organisms.
Literally every molecule in everything that has ever lived on Earth started out as CO2 molecules in the air.

R Stevenson
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 9, 2022 6:48 am

True but none of this would be possible without H2O molecules – water with its life saving anomalous properties due to hydrogen bonding.

Zig Zag Wanderer
October 5, 2022 10:24 pm

Let the usual low-intelligence accusations of cherry-picking begin!

PCman999
October 5, 2022 10:30 pm

Thanks Christopher – I find it so weird that the trendline fits the data reasonably well, and yet when just looking at the data there’s obviously 3 steps about .3°C apart over the 44 years covered by the satellite data, apparently tied to the El Nino of roughly 1998 and 2016. What is it about the El Nino that leaves the world slightly warmer, while the El Nina’s don’t seem to have a big enough effect to counter it’s big brother.

Is El Nino and it’s turn over of the Pacific Ocean the cause or its just something happening at the same time as the step-wise warming?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  PCman999
October 5, 2022 10:38 pm

During a natural warming period El Niño events lead to upward stepping and during a natural cooling period like the Little Ice Age La Niña events lead to downward stepping.

Reply to  PCman999
October 6, 2022 4:40 am

The trend line fits the data because it is calculated therefrom by the least-squares linear-regression method, a standard statistical approach recommended by Professor Jones, late of the University of East Anglia. More work goes into these graphs than the shriekers give us credit for.

The most likely explanation for the stepwise increases in temperature is a combination of some substantial el Nino events caused, according to Professor Viterito, by increased subsea volcanism particularly in the el Nino 3-4 region of the tropical eastern Pacific [indeed, he has found that the north-eastern Pacific warm blob was caused by subsea volcanism as well], and the continuing recovery of global temperatures following the little ice age, as well as the recent positive phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation (it is now in its negative phase again, but the negativity has not yet shown up in temiperature), together with a small upward pressure from our sins of emission.

It is now possible to calculate how much anthropogenic warming we may experience till the end of the 21st century. Based on the continuing failure of global temperature to rise at much more than a third of the originally-predicted midrange rate, it is likely that there will be less than 1 K further global warming caused by us this century, even if we make no attempt to abate our emissions.

TheSunDoesShine
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 7, 2022 12:29 am

I appreciate the sound discussions amongst PCman99, Stephan Wilde and Monckton of Brenchley about the impact of ENSO and PDO on global temperatures.
I think it is important for one to look at the Christy et al 2017 “Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures as a Metric for Climate Sensitivity” paper.  This is an excellent and scientifically sound paper that removes well known and understood natural variations (Volcanic episodes and ocean oscillations).
The paper uses the old 5.6 version and only is updated to mid 2017.  However it shows that after taking a into account the above mentioned natural volcanoes and ENSO there was no warming from 1991-2015 until the large 2015/16 El Niño came a long.
I hope that Christy et al would update their excellent work to use msu uah version 6 dataset and to extent their analysis to present. It will be interesting to see what is happening in the real world 🙂
Best Regards
TheSunDoesShine

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  PCman999
October 6, 2022 12:40 pm

La Niña

RickWill
October 5, 2022 10:35 pm

There is no pause in the Southern Ocean cooling. It has been trending down since reliable satellite records began more than 40 years ago.

The Nino34 region remains with zero trend throughout the satellite era.

I can guarantee that the warming trend of the past 4 decades in the northern hemisphere will continue because the solar intensity is increasing.

NCEP_Three_Trends-2.png
Reply to  RickWill
October 6, 2022 4:42 am

The trend in solar activity as measured by sunspots has been generally downward, though we are now coming out of the trough of the last 11-year cycle.

Scissor
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 8:01 am

I believe RickWill is referring to orbital effects.

Bill_W_1984
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 9:11 am

Typo found. On graph it says 0.59 C trend. In text it says 0.95 C

RickWill
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 2:14 pm

THe vast majority of people are under the misconception that solar EMR does not change much. That is correct for the sun but is dead wrong for Earth. Earth is constantly presenting a new face to the sun.

This is a 2000 year trend in sunlight in April at 30N with present time at 0.00:
-1.000  405.746351
   -0.900  406.156246
   -0.800  406.568410
   -0.700  406.982423
   -0.600  407.397883
   -0.500  407.814408
   -0.400  408.231635
   -0.300  408.649215
   -0.200  409.066813
   -0.100  409.484100
    0.000  409.900750
    0.100  410.318143
    0.200  410.734184
    0.300  411.148357
    0.400  411.560133
    0.500  411.968970
    0.600  412.374329
    0.700  412.775676
    0.800  413.172498
    0.900  413.564305
    1.000  413.950642
So 4.2W/m^2 increase in the last 1000 years and 4W/m^2 in the next thousand years. April sunlight is the driver of the boreal summer ocean temperature and May sunlight has most impact on land in June. So boreal summers have to keep warming up.

The reverse is happening in the Southern Hemisphere but most noticeable in the Southern Ocean because reduction in sunlight there has been occurring in that region for a long time.

All the present real temperature trends can be forecast using the changes in solar intensity and the hard limits on ocean temperature of -1.8C and 30C.

The idea that CO2 is responsible for warming in the NH is based on incompetent nonsense.

Last edited 1 month ago by RickWill
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  RickWill
October 9, 2022 1:11 am

Every decrease at some latitude and some time of year has a equal and opposite trend at other latitudes and times of year.
Overall, during the course of a year and combining all latitudes into a total amount of energy received by the globe, all of the orbital shifts cancel out.
The date of perihelion changes, as does orbital eccentricity, but the average does not change appreciably.
Whether one is speaking of the precession of the equinoxes or any of the other three Milankovitch cycles, the overall amount of solar energy intercepted by the planet over the course of a year stays constant, except to the extent the solar constant changes over time.

The amount of tilting of the axis of the Earth with respect to the plane of the ecliptic changes in a cycle, as does the date of perihelion, and as does the difference between the Earth-Sun distance at aphelion vs perihelion.
And those changes affect when and where the Sun shines for how long and how direct those rays are.
But the total sum of received solar energy by the planet as a whole does not change as these parameters vary.
Only who gets what, and when.
When the northern hemisphere gets more Sunlight (AKA incident solar radiation) at some particular time of year, the southern hemisphere gets correspondingly less, and vice versa.

How much energy is retained is a different matter, because the hemisphere are not equal with respect to land area, albedo, etc.
But overall, the Earth gets the same amount of sunlight and solar radiation every year, even as these cycles alter the distribution by latitude and season of the year.

Bob
October 5, 2022 10:53 pm

Good information, short and sweet. Needs wide distribution.

Reply to  Bob
October 6, 2022 4:46 am

Many thanks. So successful has the campaign of paid reputational assassination against anyone who departs by so much as a scintilla from the Party Line on the climate question that I very much doubt whether any of the Marxstream media will report that there has been no global warming at all for eight years (or nine years on the terrestrial data).

R Stevenson
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 8:13 am

Ref marxstream media surprisingly BBC 2’s current Horizon type programme on the subject of Temperature, did not mention CO2 at all in atmospheric warming only water vapour. Without the huge absorption of infrared by water vapour and the massive heat sink of the oceans for incident radiation we would be a frozen lifeless planet.

Edim
October 5, 2022 11:00 pm

There’s a pause of almost double the length (~15 years) in the September Arctic sea ice extent (canary in the coal mine).

Figure-3.png
Reply to  Edim
October 6, 2022 4:47 am

And more like a 30-year pause in the Antarctic, where nine-tenths of the world’s ice is to be found.

Edim
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 5:50 am

Yes, but Antarctic sea ice has been increasing since we’ve had the satellite records and alarmists usually want to ignore this. It’s the Arctic sea ice decline they’ve been exploiting and projecting that the decline will accelerate because of the positive feedback (albedo).
I’ve predicting for some time that it will be the Arctic sea ice increase in the next decades that will bring down the (C)AGW hypothesis.

Phil.
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 9:32 am

Really, and yet the minimum Antarctic extent this year was a new record low, just above 2 million km^2 and currently the maximum is around 4th lowest. Next minimum sea ice area could well be below 1 million km^2, doesn’t look like a pause, of course there’s not much scope for further decrease in the minimum!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Phil.
October 9, 2022 1:19 am

But the good news for you Warmistas is, you can always just stop talking about any particular topic that cannot have a scary spin applied to it at any particular moment in time, and rest assured in knowing the media will never bring up any subject that is not currently favoring the alarmist narrative.

I am very curious how it must feel to share faith with the long list of historical doomsday panic mongers, but since it is impossible for any of you to share your subjective experience of abject fear, I suppose I am consigned to just keep on imaging how awful it must be to be one of your bedwetting ilk.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
R Stevenson
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 9, 2022 7:58 am

……favouring the alarmist narrative……the BBC is the alarmist narrative and there is not one decent scientist among the lot of them; they are all poets and ppe lefties.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Phil.
October 9, 2022 1:32 am

Or, alternatively, it could well not be anything of the sort, and in fact may well be precisely the opposite.
But then y’all can just change the central topic of your panic-mongering fear campaign…again.
With a never-ending supply of inclement weather existing for a few brief moments at some place or another on our wide world, the well of fear will never run dry, it seems.

Look, we all know very well that bidness is booming in the “bad weather is BAD” racket, but I am for the life of me just not “getting it” with this whole polar ice dealio.

What exactly, prey do tell, is catastrophic and all about the always-imminent-but-never-arriving disaster scenario of a slightly less frigidly frozen, and marginally less vast, permanently frozen polar wasteland?
Does life itself really depend on keeping our death zones as huge and as deadly as they have long been?

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Phil.
October 9, 2022 1:43 am

You can call me overly imaginative, and would not be the first to do so, but to my mind, it was when two miles of ice killed every single living thing and kept it dead for some 35 million years and counting, on an entire continent (!), that was, at the time it began, teeming with abundant life…THAT was the disaster!

The ongoing Ice Age our Ice-Age-having planet is currently struggling through the midst of, is not good news, Einstein.
Nor is the near CO2 starvation and subsequent permanent eradication of the entire biosphere.
How can it be that so many are so 100% completely the opposite of correct about so much, for so long?

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Bob boder
Reply to  Edim
October 6, 2022 5:31 am

Erim

Go back 70 years and it’s flat.
Go back 15 years and is flat

Bottom of a cycle, your canary is very much alive.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bob boder
October 6, 2022 12:45 pm

Is that Schrodinger’s Canary?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 9, 2022 1:24 am

There you go, mixing hyperboles again!

Thanks for the chuckle, Clyde!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 9, 2022 11:31 am

I’m glad that someone catses my sick slick humor.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Edim
October 6, 2022 5:44 am

When I was learning about graphs in 2nd year at High School that data wasn’t a straight line. I don’t think it is now.
In my interpretation of the data is fairly flat from 1979-96, Decline 1997 to 2012 then flat 2013 – 2022. What that means I do not know, I don’t think you and any Climate Scientist do either. You could hazard a guess by throwing a couple of dice.

Edim
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 6, 2022 6:41 am

Data is data. Linear regression is just to see what the (linear) trend is (+, – or zero). You can fit a linear trend over any data.
I think that the Arctic sea ice variability is an oscillation, so the best fit would be a sine wave, with the wavelength of ~60 years.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Edim
October 9, 2022 1:52 am

Could be a cosine wave. Hard to say without seeing just where it began at the dawn of time.

Mike
October 5, 2022 11:42 pm

 So slow a rate of warming is well within the natural variability of the climate, and is proving net-beneficial.”

Well said and I agree 100%. Any other conclusion is valueless.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Mike
October 9, 2022 1:54 am

And yet they get rich and laugh heartily all the way to the bank with OUR money!

Independent
October 5, 2022 11:54 pm

Yet somehow our scumbag “journalists” tell people every night on the news “it’s worse than we thought.” I hope enough people wake up in time or we’re in for a lot rougher than massive inflation and stock market crashes.

Reply to  Independent
October 6, 2022 4:49 am

“Independent” is correct. But the intention of those behind the long campaign of maskirovka (organized and persistent psychological warfare by deception) that is the global-warming scam is the economic destruction and political destruction of the free and democratic West.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 9, 2022 1:56 am

comment image&ct=g

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 9, 2022 1:57 am

We are living through exactly what it means to “lose the peace.”

Chris Hanley
October 6, 2022 12:02 am

The trend on the entire dataset during the 526 months from December 1978 to September 2022 is 0.95 C° 0.59C°, equivalent to only 1.34 C°/century

Last edited 1 month ago by Chris Hanley
Nick
Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 6, 2022 12:47 am

Excellent catch.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 6, 2022 4:50 am

Well spotted! Moderators, please correct!

Editor
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 5:12 pm

Now corrected to .59C

Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 11, 2022 9:48 pm

Many thanks!

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 12:05 am

Again a very high 30-day SOI, approaching 20, La Niña works.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 12:18 am

The first breath of winter in North America.
comment image?w=632

K-Bob
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 9:48 am

Go to the Weather Channel’s October forecast map. It shows an exact inverse to this map. Wisconsin and Minnesote are on fire! And they are also posting a story that Intense Hurricanes may Double in the next 30 years. Really? Where are the fact checkers, Politico, Wapo? Oh thats right, they’re too busy fact checking/debunking Trump’s latest opinions.

Strativarius
October 6, 2022 12:45 am

If only the deranged alarmists would take this opportunity to…. pause and reflect

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Strativarius
October 6, 2022 6:15 am

No money in that.

Doonman
Reply to  Strativarius
October 6, 2022 11:21 am

Deranged alarmists never go on vacation even as their hated molecule CO2 does.

David Dibbell
October 6, 2022 5:03 am

Monckton of Brenchley, thank you for this update. Eventually the unsoundness of the claim that CO2 is the climate control knob will become more obvious. Meanwhile, I remember the placebo thermostat placed by one of our HVAC controls technicians in our office area. It was a pneumatic type, same as the real one, and was supplied with instrument air so as to make hissing sounds to please the complainer who would turn it up or down. But it had no actual effect, with no connection to the heating or cooling unit. Such is the CO2 climate “thermostat” as I see it.

Last edited 1 month ago by David Dibbell
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Dibbell
October 6, 2022 12:48 pm

The power of expectations is generally underappreciated.

When I was in college, we played a practical joke on one of our room-mates. We emptied his bottle of vodka and replaced the contents with tap water. The room-mate came home with his girlfriend and made a couple of what they thought were screwdrivers, but were actually just diluted orange juice. They proceeded to get giggly and act slightly drunk for no real reason except that they thought they were under the influence of alcohol.

Last edited 1 month ago by Clyde Spencer
Javier
October 6, 2022 5:14 am

it is also ever more evident that the warming since 1990 is well below half the midrange prediction made by IPCC that year.

8-year pauses are very common in surface temperature datasets. The all-important point is that the warming observed does not support the CO2 hypothesis of modern global warming. It is too low (even after adjustments) for what the hypothesis predicts. It is obvious to impartial scientists (like me), that the hypothesis is wrong. The new pause (just the old one interrupted by the 2016 El Niño) is just a manifestation of an insufficient warming rate for the CO2 increase hypothesis.

comment image

Figure from my book: Climate of the Past, Present and Future: A scientific debate, 2nd ed.

Last edited 1 month ago by Javier
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Javier
October 6, 2022 12:58 pm

Also, the annual and monthly changes in temperature are not responsive to the changes in CO2 concentration. Indeed, during the Summer, there is a negative correlation between the change in temperature and and atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Sheila Corn
October 6, 2022 5:41 am

“The New Pause Lengthens to 8 Years”
As seen on the BBC, unfortunately I don’t think we will see this headline on the BBC.

LT3
October 6, 2022 5:44 am

It will be interesting to see what happens with global temps over the next few years associated the with the Hunga Tonga eruption. There is a significant cooling event in the Mid latitude Southern Hemisphere in the Lower Stratosphere that will undoubtedly have an effect on Earths climate.

RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Time Series Trend Browser (remss.com)

MidSouthernTLS.png
Last edited 1 month ago by LT3
Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  LT3
October 6, 2022 6:11 am

This is not seen in the northern hemisphere.
comment image
Temperatures have risen in the tropics.
comment image

LT3
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 6:27 am

Yes that is correct the eruption was in the South Pacific, it will take some time for the H2O to migrate to the Northern Hemisphere, but the lower pressure caused by the cooling will more than likely cause undulations in the Northern Polar Vortex and lead to a brutal winter this season.

Javier
Reply to  LT3
October 6, 2022 6:43 am

It will not migrate to the Northern Hemisphere. Lower stratospheric circulation is poleward. Most of that water will leave the stratosphere before it reaches the Northern Hemisphere.

LT3
Reply to  Javier
October 6, 2022 9:43 am

The data clearly proves your statement wrong, the plot below shows the lower stratosphere in the Southern Hemisphere showing the warming associated with Pinatubo which was a significant Northern Hemisphere SO2 injection event, and the aerosols clearly made from the North to the South,

LT3
Reply to  LT3
October 6, 2022 9:45 am

Southern Lower Stratosphere with Northern Hemisphere SO2 effects

SouthernStratosphere.png
Last edited 1 month ago by LT3
Javier
Reply to  LT3
October 6, 2022 1:10 pm

There are satellite images showing how the water injection anomaly has been migrating from the site of injection, at 22ºS, southward. It is now mostly around 45-50ºS. It is going in the wrong direction to support what you say.

LT3
Reply to  Javier
October 6, 2022 4:02 pm

Wrong again my friend, the truth is apparently a quest that you are not interested in.

Tonga.png
Javier
Reply to  LT3
October 6, 2022 5:48 pm

You have a very weird concept of the truth.

comment image

July 2022 record cold values at 10 hPa (ERA5)

comment image

NCEP showing the extreme cold anomaly at 50ºS in August. There is no temperature anomaly in the tropics, and the RSS images you posted show the same. No temperature anomaly at the tropics, just at the 25-60ºS.

LT3
Reply to  Javier
October 7, 2022 2:39 am

Either you cannot stand being wrong or you just do not get it?

You said “It will not migrate to the Northern Hemisphere. Lower stratospheric circulation is poleward. Most of that water will leave the stratosphere before it reaches the Northern Hemisphere.”

I show you a plot of water vapor anomalies clearly migrating to the Northern Hemisphere, and you show me a plot of temperature anomalies. This eruption blasted particulate matter all the way to mesosphere. Do you think that cold atmospheric temp anomalies are a proxy for anomalously high water vapor content?

There can be no further contact.

Javier
Reply to  LT3
October 7, 2022 5:54 am

Do you think that cold atmospheric temp anomalies are a proxy for anomalously high water vapor content?

Not only I but everybody else believes an increase in stratospheric H2O leads to stratospheric cooling.

Smith et al. 2001:

The results showed that H20 increases in the stratosphere could have caused a considerable cooling effect that is not dissimilar to the cooling due to stratospheric ozone decreases

Solomon et al. 2010:

Increases in stratospheric water vapor act to cool the stratosphere but to warm the troposphere

The record cooling at 45ºS in over 30 years of observations can only be explained by the coincident Hunga Tonga eruption. It is not sulfate aerosols, because they warm the stratosphere. It is the extra water vapor.

It is a fact that extraordinary stratospheric cooling is only being observed in the extra-tropical Southern Hemisphere. This was to be expected because winter circulation has been towards the SH. Will it be observed when winter circulation is towards the NH? It is possible but remains to be seen.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Javier
October 6, 2022 10:26 am

The temperature in the upper stratosphere in the tropics has dropped the most, due to a decrease in UV radiation.
comment image
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Javier
October 6, 2022 10:29 am

An even greater effect in the upper startosphere is seen above 60S.
comment image
comment image

Javier
Reply to  LT3
October 6, 2022 6:30 am

The presence of a significant increase in stratospheric water from the Hunga Tonga eruption is cooling the lower stratosphere. As a result, the surface of that part of the world should warm from a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation.

The effect over the Northern Hemisphere comes from an alteration in the stratospheric temperature gradients that should result in a slightly increased chance of cold air incursions over northern mid-latitudes this coming winter. As a result the NH winter should be less warm than usual for a La Niña winter.

ENSO did an unusual for the time of the year V-turn last July into an infrequent third-year Niña. I wonder if the stratospheric cooling from Hunga Tonga, as it moved southward through the Brewer-Dobson circulation was responsible for that. At the time I was projecting an ENSO-neutral winter due to higher solar activity.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png

LT3
Reply to  Javier
October 6, 2022 6:42 am

The problem with the general consensus about Stratospheric Water Vapor regulating outgoing long wavelength IR is that it does not take into account the energy balance of incoming vs outgoing of the full spectrum. We know that water vapor essentially has no affect on visible light but on incoming UV it is huge. The facts indicate that UV and IR or greatly affected by incoming and since there is no outgoing UV, an energy imbalance exist now relative to conditions before the eruption.

WaterVaporAbsorptionSpectrum.png
Javier
Reply to  LT3
October 6, 2022 7:42 am

the general consensus about Stratospheric Water Vapor regulating outgoing long wavelength IR is that it does not take into account the energy balance of incoming vs outgoing of the full spectrum.

Obviously, this has been looked into.

The study focuses on the change in infrared (IR) heating rates, since short-wave effects contribute only ∼5% to the change in net heating rate that results from a stratospheric water vapor perturbation (not shown).

Maycock, A.C., Shine, K.P. and Joshi, M.M., 2011. The temperature response to stratospheric water vapour changesQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society137(657), pp.1070-1082.

The cooling effect of stratospheric water vapor on stratospheric temperature is due to its greenhouse IR absorption and emission. This is what produces 95% of its heating rate (negative).

LT3
Reply to  Javier
October 6, 2022 8:50 am

The UV component is not understood, there is almost data and the referenced paper does not touch that issue, but thanks for the link. More UV has been hitting the surface for the last two decades because Stratospheric Water vapor content dropped by 10% after 2001. That will swing back the other direction now. Fortunately nature has provided a grand experiment verify many things about this topic.

Javier
Reply to  LT3
October 6, 2022 1:07 pm

UV absorption at the stratosphere warms big time. Water vapor at the stratosphere cools big time. It is actually quite simple, the IR effect of water overwhelms the UV effect of water. What you say cannot be correct.

LT3
Reply to  Javier
October 6, 2022 4:10 pm

Well, you can go on believing what you want to believe, -100+ degree H20 cannot possibly have any effect on the surface on upwelling IR and even if it does UV incoming and IR outgoing are decoupled in this context. You are not making any sense when you talk about overwhelming.

Javier
Reply to  LT3
October 6, 2022 6:00 pm

You are the one believing things that are not supported by anything. Everybody can see the great cooling effect the H2O injection is having in the lower stratosphere, with record-low temperatures at 40-50ºS. It is just not possible that it comes from enhanced UV absorption, as that would deliver energy increasing the temperature. It must come from radiative cooling and the only possibility is enhanced IR radiation by H2O. It is clear that you are wrong in your unsupported beliefs.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Javier
October 6, 2022 11:03 pm

Yes, water in the lower stratosphere radiates strongly into space, but it also warms the lower stratosphere.
comment image

Javier
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 7, 2022 2:24 am

Ren, “it also warms” makes no sense. It either warms or cools, as the temperature change is a NET effect.

If you have any articles or data that show the water is warming the atmosphere I’d love to see them because that would mean I would learn something new.

The effect of the extreme stratospheric water injection from the Hunga Tonga eruption is an extreme cooling of the 30-60ºS lower stratosphere, accompanied by the corresponding geopotential height changes. The effect is moving South, not North. That evidence supports my point of view. Where is the evidence against it?

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Javier
October 7, 2022 6:50 am

Javier in winter, water vapor from the south in the mid-latitudes competes with ozone that falls from the stratosphere. Of course, water vapor is heated from the surface and in winter can reach as the Arctic, where it raises the temperature throughout the atmospheric column.
“Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron).”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
comment image
The water vapor transfers heat not only horizontally, but also vertically. It can cool the higher layers of the stratosphere if it reaches there.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Javier
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 7, 2022 7:09 am

water vapor is heated from the surface

Ren, that is not correct. The Longwave radiative heating rate for water vapor is negative at all altitudes. This means water vapor can only cool the atmosphere from IR radiation. It will warm the surface, but it will cool the atmosphere. It can only warm the atmosphere through UV radiation, but there’s very little of it in winter and none in the Arctic at that time.

comment image

From Petty 2006 https://www.amazon.com/First-Course-Atmospheric-Radiation-2nd/dp/0972903313

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Javier
October 7, 2022 8:17 am

Volcanic ash that enters the stratosphere lowers the temperature in the troposphere, but raises it in the stratosphere because ash, as a solid, absorbs a much larger range of solar radiation. It is simply opaque to infrared radiation.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Javier
October 7, 2022 8:27 am

Javier, hurricanes transfer heat from the ocean surface (ocean surface temperatures can drop as much as two degrees after a hurricane passes) to the stratosphere, where they radiate infrared heat at -80o C.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 9, 2022 2:25 am

Hurricanes leave a trail of cooler water, true. But this is mainly due to mixing with the deeper colder layers of water that underlay the surface waters of the entire global ocean.
They do transfer thermal energy poleward, of course. That is the net effect of all weather.
And not exclusively poleward, but also upwards, to space, which is where it all goes in either case.
Hear that huge sucking sound?
That is the infinite cold and black of space absorbing yet another years worth of accumulated solar energy, as the long, dark, polar night settles in and spread towards the Arctic circle for another six months of Cold Hell.

LT3
Reply to  Javier
October 7, 2022 7:04 am

I do not know what is causing the temperature anomalies in the Southern mid latitudes, there is no doubt that it is an after effect of the eruption. It could be water vapor or it could be particulate matter or a combination of both. The lower stratospheric temperature trend has been flat for 20 years and water vapor content has fluctuated and generally been trending up during the same period. Water vapor anomalies have been detected all the way up 15 degrees north and no response is evident anywhere except the Southern Mid latitudes, there is nothing simple about this.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  LT3
October 7, 2022 8:21 am

Only a long-term decline in ozone production can lower temperatures in the stratosphere. Only the O2 molecule undergoes photolysis, and in order for an O3=O2+O molecule to be formed, heat must be transferred to another molecule. Otherwise, O3 immediately decays.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  LT3
October 7, 2022 8:45 am

Look at the temperature in the lower stratosphere from 2021. Already in 2021 you can see low temperatures with periodic stronger drops.
comment image

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 9, 2022 2:30 am

Note to Self: Do NOT move to the upper atmosphere!
Even the best of times are the worst of times way up there.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  LT3
October 7, 2022 8:53 am

An even stronger drop in temperature is seen in the middle stratosphere.
comment image
comment image

David Bunney - Meteorologist, Energy Specialist
October 6, 2022 5:45 am

Remind me again, has anyone shown that these movements up, down or horizontal are not natural in origin? ie the curve is doing what it has always done for as far back as we can create proxy data… so CO2 adds a little bit of background warmth hypothetically based on radiative transfer theory, but does it change storm tracks, weather type, frequency or intensity or have any credible real world attribution ? Global temperature anomalies is a meaningless graph to scare people with. We should fight to change the narrative and bring it back to.something grounded in science and the real life experience of humans. The UN propaganda machine should not dictate the price or affordability of energy, food, goods and services through this thing.

Interesting to note that it’s flattering out though all the same.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Bunney - Meteorologist, Energy Specialist
October 6, 2022 6:26 am

“Remind me again, has anyone shown that these movements up, down or horizontal are not natural in origin?”

No, nobody has provided any evidence that the climate we see is not natural.

Mother Nature is in control of the climate until proven otherwise, and it has never been proven otherwise. Not in all these decades of trying.

Somebody could prove me wrong with a little evidence, but they won’t because they don’t have any evidence. Right guys? They won’t answer because they have no answer.

You go around all the time saying the other side doesn’t have any proof that CO2 is a demon gas, and all you get from the other side is silence. That ought to tell you all you need to know about alarmist climate science. They have no answers and when you call them on it, they remain silent. The alarmists don’t have what they claim they have.

Meanwhile the Western Democracries are in the process of bankrupting themselves in their efforts to control the benign gas, CO2. Insanity, greed and stupidty, all combined.

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, world (from the movie).

RickWill
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 6, 2022 9:09 pm

control the benign gas, CO2

Benign only in the sense of any direct influence over Earth’s energy balance.

CO2 is the foundation of abundant life on earth and its historic reduction provided the basic energy store for current human abundance. Human existence, as most know it, is due to the fossilised biomatter long dead that sequestered the carbon from CO2. Humans are doing a little bit to restore a more natural balance to improve conditions for plant life sharing the planet.

I am amazed by the rate of growth of some plant life. There are noticeable changes over periods as short as a day.

Richard M
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 7, 2022 9:50 am

Mother Nature planned for all of the changes we have seen. It’s all accounted for in the physics of the universe. Once one looks at the thousands of perfectly quantified physical variables required for life to exist, the thought that more CO2 would produce an existential threat is hilarious.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Richard M
October 9, 2022 2:33 am

It is obvious you would make a perfectly awful Climate Scientist™!

Don’t quit your day job, and forget about that gig as a writer of Democrat talking points.

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 5:54 am

The fact that the Niño 3.4 index remains above -1 indicates a more sluggish decline in global temperature, but an extension of La Niña conditions. And such a condition will remain until a strong increase in the strength of the solar wind, which is now highly variable.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202210.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202210.gif

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 6:32 am

Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas could use a little rain. This weather pattern has us very dry. It’s had a high pressure system hovering over us, more or less, for six months. But it looks like things are changing a little now.

I was under the impression that La Niña conditions enhanced atlantic hurricanes, but this year seems to be an exception for some reason.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 6, 2022 6:48 am

If solar activity does not increase markedly, such conditions of weak La Niña may become established. However, there will be more snowfall in the winter in the Midwest when the jetstream begins to wave.

JamesD
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 6, 2022 6:48 am

No Pacific moisture means drought and high pressure. How is the cotton crop?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  JamesD
October 6, 2022 6:36 pm

It’s a serious drought, especially for some locations. It is affecting all crops and livestock.

But we may get some relief before too long.

We had a similar drought back in 2010-2012, only this one lasted about two years. The one we are currently in has lasted about six months.

RickWill
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 6, 2022 9:27 pm

Conditions in the Nino34 region now are close to what existed in 2009 ahead of the weak 2010/11 El Nino. It is reasonable to expect a weak El Nino in 2023. The 11 to 12 year cycle in this temperature that lags sunspots by 31 months is close to its minimum now. So any El Nino in the next year or so will be similar time of the cycle to 2010 rather than 2016 and 1998.

Moisture over central Australia is already impressive and still in spring.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-226.13,-24.53,905/loc=141.138,-25.785

Moisture begets moisture so should be another wet summer. Once the atmospheric moisture gets to 45mm, the atmosphere over land can really pump up and drag mid level moisture from the oceans.

Screen Shot 2022-10-07 at 3.16.47 pm.png
Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  RickWill
October 6, 2022 10:51 pm

I agree 100 percent.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  RickWill
October 6, 2022 11:26 pm

This is not the end of rainfall in southeastern Australia. More cold fronts from the south will arrive there soon.
comment image

mkelly
October 6, 2022 6:10 am

This pause is 8 yrs and the last was 18 yrs. I find it odd that with an increasing CO2 ppm we have in excess of 26 yrs with no warming, but alarmists are yelling it is worse than we think.

Doonman
Reply to  mkelly
October 6, 2022 11:39 am

Alarmists can’t claim that their climate control policies are working. That’s because atmospheric CO2 keeps rising. They’ve really boxed themselves in because they have already taken the money and have only one hill to die on.

Anything else is fraud.

Last edited 1 month ago by doonman
Richard Barraclough
Reply to  mkelly
October 7, 2022 2:33 am

And yet the linear trend, calculated from the beginning of the old pause, in July 1997, up to this month, is 0.11 deg/decade, not dissimilar to the 0.13 for the whole dataset.

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 6:22 am

As of 2019, there is a clear downward trend in the temperature of the Peruvian Current.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino1.png

Richard Page
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 5:32 pm

Damn, the anchovy catch will be down then.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Richard Page
October 6, 2022 10:49 pm

Conversely, the cool Peruvian Current is an abundance of food for anchovies.
Not only is the anchovy fishery plentiful, but the Galapagos penguin population will increase.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Richard Page
October 9, 2022 2:37 am

It is warming, el nino, that causes decrease in fish populations.
Cold means upwelling is ongoing, plenty of nutrients, plenty of O2.

Bruce Cobb
October 6, 2022 6:47 am

The ever-faithful and intrepid Pause Deniers must be on vacay.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 6, 2022 7:25 am

Maybe they are all still occupied with trashing CMoB’s reply to Spencer’s post about the feedback paper.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 6, 2022 11:42 am

I think they are out looking for firewood.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 9, 2022 2:40 am

I think they might be getting extra work from their side gig writing copy for alarmist news media scare pieces, which is currently spewing a firehose-like torrent of outlandish warmista malarkey.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 9, 2022 2:41 am

Them panic-mongers LOO-OOVE them some hurricanes, yo!

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Brian R Catt
October 6, 2022 6:51 am

THis is the turning point maximum of a cycle, warming is over.

comment image?dl=0

As I read the UAH Satellite data, by far the most regularly spaced and consistent instrumetally of any, far better than HADCET 5 that only measures ocean water temps rather irregularly, the global air temperature is currently 0.6 degs colder than the 1998 and 2016 El Nino maximums, at a level it has been for most of the last 24 years. Anyone have a problem with that they can enumerate, using the actual UAH data? THis is also close to the 1939 maximum, before the following cooling. How can this be represented as extreme rate or range warming, except by someone wholly unable to read a data set or a graph. Or a liar.

And of course, it is also below the average temperature of the last 4,000 years. Even the Kobashi multi core data puts it in the middle. Nowhere near “warmer than since records began”. Not in this interglacial or the last 4 either. All warmer.

Just another cycle. “All we see are cycles” , “No monotonic signal” – Carl-Otto Weiss.

How long can this overt bullshit be regurgitated. The observations say NO.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Brian R Catt
October 6, 2022 7:15 am

The way I read the temperature record since the 1880’s the recent temperature record shows a continuation of the pause-warming pattern that has existed since the 1880’s. The current pause period began about 2004-5 and should last until about 2035. A period of continuous warming should occur from 2035 until 2065 if the pattern continues. In that case, there will only be forty years of continuous warming in this century

bdgwx
Reply to  Brian R Catt
October 6, 2022 12:45 pm

Brian R Catt said: “As I read the UAH Satellite data, by far the most regularly spaced and consistent instrumetally of any”

UAH has poor coverage. Read Spencer et al. 1990 and Spencer & Christy 1992 for details. In a nutshell the coverage is so bad that they had to infill grid cells using cells up to 4160 km away spatial and 2 days temporally. Contrast this with GISTEMP which only infills up to 1200 km away.

UAH is also subject to numerous adjustments that are arguable more numerous and more significant than anything the conventional datasets are doing. In addition each version employs an ever increasing number of adjustments.

Year / Version / Effect / Description / Citation

Adjustment 1: 1992 : A : unknown effect : simple bias correction : Spencer & Christy 1992

Adjustment 2: 1994 : B : -0.03 C/decade : linear diurnal drift : Christy et al. 1995

Adjustment 3: 1997 : C : +0.03 C/decade : removal of residual annual cycle related to hot
target variations : Christy et al. 1998

Adjustment 4: 1998 : D : +0.10 C/decade : orbital decay : Christy et al. 2000

Adjustment 5: 1998 : D : -0.07 C/decade : removal of dependence on time variations of hot target temperature : Christy et al. 2000

Adjustment 6: 2003 : 5.0 : +0.008 C/decade : non-linear diurnal drift : Christy et al. 2003

Adjustment 7: 2004 : 5.1 : -0.004 C/decade : data criteria acceptance : Karl et al. 2006 

Adjustment 8: 2005 : 5.2 : +0.035 C/decade : diurnal drift : Spencer et al. 2006

Adjustment 9: 2017 : 6.0 : -0.03 C/decade : new method : Spencer et al. 2017 [open]

That is 0.307 C/decade worth of adjustments jumping from version to version netting out to +0.039 C/decade.

Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying UAH isn’t useful. But I am saying that this widespread belief that UAH does not make adjustments or perform grid infilling is just wrong. Furthermore, an argument could be made that not only does UAH do everything that conventional datasets do, but they do more of it.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 6:41 pm

The UAH satellite data and the Weather Balloon data correlate at about 97 percent, if I recall correctly.

What’s the correlation between the Weather Balloon data and the other data sets?

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 7, 2022 7:14 am

comment image

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 2:08 pm

Hey look! bgwxyz knows how to copy-n-paste!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 9, 2022 3:14 am

“What’s the correlation between the Weather Balloon data and the other data sets?”

That is a darn good question, sir.
Perhaps we can jot off a letter to the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and see if maybe Dr. Christy can make us up a graph showing very plainly the correlation in graphical form that cannot possibly be mistaken for one of those Warmista Fake-Graphs-R-Us Blue Light Specials?

It would be even better if we could get him to perform the Herculean task of also plotting on the same graph the predictions of the various global Climate Models, you know, just so we can see if the Warmistas have any idea of what they are talking about, or if perhaps just maybe their diapers are completely loaded with a stinky heap of smelly crap?

Hmmm, if only…

modelsvsdata.png
Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 9, 2022 3:18 am

Oops, wrong graph. This one:

christy_dec8.jpg
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 9, 2022 7:36 am

And bgwxyz likes to proclaim that IPCC “projections” are accurate.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  bdgwx
October 9, 2022 2:54 am

So, wait…let me see if I have this straight…
A warmista is complaining about adjustments?

And what exactly is “conventional” about altering historical data sets using an algorithm that adjusts every past value according to how much CO2 was in the air at the time?

“NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to” | Real Climate Science

USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-Vs-CO2-1900-2020-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-vs-CO2-1-1024x846.png
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  bdgwx
October 9, 2022 3:01 am

Let’s consider that number again, briefly: Thirty-Nine One Thousandths of One Degree.
Golly!
Is that a lot?
That is almost as small a number as the percentage of the atmosphere comprised of CO2.
But rounded off to the nearest one tenth of one degree (since the graph we are discussing only shows, you know, tenths of a degree and all), that comes to a grand total net adjustment of…wait for it….drum roll please…
If you guessed it you win the prize Zero Point Zero Degrees!
Celsius!
That 0.0 is in Celsius degrees.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 9, 2022 7:38 am

Hoorah!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  bdgwx
October 9, 2022 3:28 am

Now do adjustments to the other satellite data set.
Just in case you never get around to it though…
Erasing The Satellite Hiatus | Real Climate Science

Whoa!
That is more than 39 one thousandths of a degree, aint it?
A lot more!
And Mears went to the trouble of adjusting recent data up, and less recent data adjusted down…way down!
AND data from longer ago adjusted more and more and more, just like…hmm, it is reminding me of something…

Screenshot-2016-03-02-at-07.38.25-PM.png
Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Caligula Jones
October 6, 2022 7:20 am

Indeed.

Just checked my very amateurish look into the Monthly Southern Oscillation Index, and, damn, first time in 380 months (February 1991), the 30 year average is positive.

AlanJ
October 6, 2022 8:13 am

Properly understood, the climate is nothing more than a series of pauses and cooling trends. There is no warming.

comment image

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  AlanJ
October 6, 2022 9:16 am

Must be cherry-picking season again.

paul courtney
Reply to  AlanJ
October 6, 2022 10:59 am

Mr. J: And what caused that no warming? Was it no CO2?
You’re fooling nobody.

Doonman
Reply to  AlanJ
October 6, 2022 11:52 am

Looks like a 43 year time series of El Nino’s to me. What’s the latest theory about how CO2 back radiation only warms the lower troposphere during El Nino events no matter what its concentration in the atmosphere is?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  AlanJ
October 6, 2022 1:06 pm

There is no warming.

Then why is the right-hand side of the temperature line higher than the left-hand side?

AlanJ
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 6, 2022 1:22 pm

It’s a trick of the eye. It’s pauses all the way down.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 9, 2022 3:23 am

Here is why, explained and graphed:
Erasing The Satellite Hiatus | Real Climate Science

Screenshot-2016-03-02-at-07.38.25-PM.png
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 9, 2022 3:25 am

RSS and UAH used to be a virtual match, but RSS actually showed even less warming than UAH.
And then climate realists referred to it one too many times…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 9, 2022 11:42 am

I actually applied to RSS for a job once. That was when I was naive about the politics of global warming and remarked over lunch with the staff and president that I had doubts about global warming. I didn’t get an offer. 🙂

bigoilbob
Reply to  AlanJ
October 6, 2022 1:38 pm

There is no warming’.

For this time period, it’s warming ARO 2.17 +/- 0.06 degC/century, with an R^2 of ~0.69. Now, you might be right, but here’s the probability that you are:

3.12E-249

The good news is that my engineering laptop can calculate values much tinier than I thought. I already gave you the bad news….

AlanJ
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 6, 2022 2:09 pm

So you’re telling me there’s a chance.

Richard M
Reply to  AlanJ
October 7, 2022 10:49 am

One of Jim Carey’s best lines.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Richard M
October 7, 2022 4:09 pm

I steal lines too, but attribute them. Maybe the way forward is to answer Mr. Spencer’s good question.

Bob Smith
October 6, 2022 8:39 am

The graph has the correct slope (0.59) while the text has the digits reversed (0.95).

Reply to  Bob Smith
October 6, 2022 3:37 pm

Mea culpa.

Editor
Reply to  Bob Smith
October 6, 2022 5:20 pm

Has been corrected to .59C in the text now everyone is happy again.

Timothy R Robinson
October 6, 2022 9:30 am

We can see their models don’t equate to reality. Our sides experts clearly see through research that shifting wind and sea currents are behind a lot of current changes in local weather patterns. The real problem isn’t climate change, or the other so called problems, but is all related to the leftist agenda of Marxism or Egalitarianism. They need to get rid of Western culture and thought. Then they can finally have the equal society that Stalin and Lenin dreamed of. Once they rid us trouble makers out. then communism will suceed. It is a little like the people who advocate the gold standard as money. It is to unreliable and deciding how many shoes equals a bushel of wheat, every minute, is just to complicated. Their side has people like Dr. John Holdren, science advisor for Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama. They predicted in the 70’s that mass population would kill us all by the year 2000 and we need to sterilize people or just get rid of them. We have people like Lord Monckton that see a great future ahead with a little warming. But we are living in the now, where they are living in a fantasy world of mathematical nonsense.

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 10:16 am

Let’s hope farmers in the Midwest aren’t caught off guard by frost and snow at night.
comment image

Richard M
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 7, 2022 10:54 am

The 2022 harvest is in full throttle. Maybe not a record year but close again thanks to CO2 fertilization.

bdgwx
October 6, 2022 10:24 am

CMoB said: “just as it is also ever more evident that the warming since 1990 is well below half the midrange prediction made by IPCC that year.”

You’ve left me no choice. This is straight up disinformation. You know exactly what the IPCC predicted because I’ve pointed it out to you multiple times now. So why do you continue to post something that is patently false? Do you want to post what the IPCC actually predicted or do you want me to? Either way it is getting posted.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Kevin McNeill
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 11:50 am

Then post it, don’t posture!

bdgwx
Reply to  Kevin McNeill
October 6, 2022 12:20 pm

I’m going to give CMoB one day out of respect for him.

bigoilbob
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 1:44 pm

Prep to be “Commied”. CMoB’s lack of self awareness is most obvious when he whines about the Dr. Evil cabal out to out to get him. The chance of this plot being real is about as high as the chance that RSS temperatures between 1980 and now being flat, or down.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/05/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-8-years/#comment-3614990

Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 12:18 pm

From the IPCC 1990 first assessment report, page 73:

Under the I P C C Business-as-Usual (Scenario A ) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global-mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be about 0.3°C per decade

Of course, it has been “business as usual” since 1990 because there have been no reductions in the rate of atmospheric CO2 emissions as measured by Mauna Loa observatory.

bdgwx
Reply to  Doonman
October 6, 2022 12:23 pm

Doonman said: “Of course, it has been “business as usual” since 1990″

Can you post a link to evidence suggesting there is 450 ppm of CO2, 2500 ppb of CH4, and 450 ppt of CFC11 in the atmosphere? I’d like to review it if you don’t mind.

Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 12:53 pm

I see a May 2022 CO2 level of 421 PPM from Mauna Loa. So you are correct, in May 2022 we are 6.8% lower concentration than the projected “Business as Usual” IPCC projection made in 1990.

So a 93.2% concentration of the 1990 “Business as Usual” projection is then .27 deg C per decade using the IPCC method of prediction.

Last edited 1 month ago by doonman
bdgwx
Reply to  Doonman
October 6, 2022 1:00 pm

What about CH4 and CFC11?

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 1:10 pm

I rounded down to account for the part per billion and part per trillion concentrations of those trace gases. Feel free to waste your time doing a complete accounting for them if you like.

bdgwx
Reply to  Doonman
October 6, 2022 1:31 pm

CH4 and CFC11 are not the same thing as CO2. Telling me the ppm of CO2 whether you rounded up or down does not in any way answer the question of what the concentration of CH4 and CFC11 are.

Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 5:23 pm

They amount to very little as their postulated warm forcing is far smaller than the already small CO2 forcing.

This is why CH4 is hardly mentioned any more.

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 6, 2022 6:51 pm

The IPCC says that CH4 and CFCs increased the ERF wrt to CO2 by 44% as of 2019. (see AR6 WG1 Annex III for details). Not only did the IPCC think both CH4 and CFCs were important but they also think it is a significant contributor to the ERF and the studied scenarios even in their first assessment report from 1990.

Let me ask you since you want to participate in this discussion. Of the scenarios that the IPCC FAR from 1990 studied which one best matches the emission pathway that humans chose?

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 11:59 pm

No, it is YOU who don’t realize that the IPCC is advancing CH4 a negligible warm forcing contributor for people like YOU who then get excited over it.

long ago learned that anyone befuddled by the misleading IPCC claims for ch4 isn’t worth discussing it with you who will ignore the long known negligible warm forcing effect

I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself over a hyper trace gas.

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 7, 2022 6:39 am

It doesn’t matter if I’m “embarrassing” myself over CH4 or whether you think an increase of 44% above that of CO2 alone is significant or not. That does not justify Monckton misrepresenting the IPCC or change the fact that their prediction from 1990 was pretty good.

Old Cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 2:36 pm

Help me out here. What was the postulated mechanism for the projected increase in methane release?

bdgwx
Reply to  Old Cocky
October 6, 2022 6:53 pm

The IPCC scenarios are based human emissions.

Old Cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 7:12 pm

Thanks, but what are the proposed human emissions of methane?
I’ve seem mentions of ruminant production, melting permafrost and methane release as a side effect of coal mining and oil production, but not the breakdowns.

Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 12:01 am

The IPCC scenarios are stupid since CH4 hardly matters in the “heat budget”.

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 7, 2022 6:37 am

Just because you think the IPCC scenarios are stupid does not give Monckton the right to misrepresent what the IPCC said nor does it invalidate the fact that the IPCC prediction from 1990 was pretty good.

Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 8:59 am

You made a strawman reply,

Congratulations!

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 7, 2022 9:10 am

I’m not the one who said the IPCC scenarios are stupid in a thread discussing how Monckton misrepresented the IPCC. Don’t put that on me.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Doonman
October 6, 2022 5:10 pm

Bdgwx will change the subject in 3.. 2.. 1..

bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 6:31 am

In the IPCC first assessment report from 1990 their were 4 scenarios studies including A (business-as-usual), B, C, and D. The scenarios are different depending on the concentration of GHGs in atmosphere. The following is presented in the SPM on page xix. I have marked the concentrations as of 2020.

comment image

We can also see the scenarios presented as the amount of RF they would yield. The following is presented in the SPM on page xx.

comment image

Based on the scenarios studied a reasonable match to the emission pathway humans chose is scenario C. The following is presented in the SPM on page xxiii. It shows the global average temperature prediction for each scenario studied. As you can see for scenario C the IPCC predicted 0.55 C of warming. Per GISTEMP, HadCRUT, BEST, and ERA the actual amount of warming was about 0.60 C.

comment image

Furthermore, the IPCC clearly states in the SPM on page xi that scenario A is expected to have 0.3 C/decade of warming, scenario B is 0.2 C/decade, scenario C is 0.1 C/decade, and scenario D is 0.1 C/decade.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 6:44 am

Extrapolations of quantities with huge uncertainty.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 7, 2022 2:07 pm

YES! Two downvotes for pointing out the obvious.

This is the level of “analysis” in IPCC-ville—straight-line extrapolations.

Mark BLR
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 9:56 am

The final, GMST, graph is for what would now be called the “worst-case scenario”, assuming a “top of the range” ECS value.

For a “best estimate” (/ “most likely” ?) estimate see Figure A.9 on page 336 (of the FAR, WG-I, report from 1990).

NB : The 3.2-3.3°C in 2100 value in Appendix A of the main report is a fair bit below the “frightening” 4.2-4.3°C value in the SPM.

FAR_Figure-A-9.png
bdgwx
Reply to  Mark BLR
October 7, 2022 11:08 am

That graph is consistent with the graph in the SPM page xxii. However, this graph is a lot easier to read since it is baselined at 0 C at 1990 and makes it easier to show how Monckton is misrepresenting the IPCC. I was not aware of it until you posted it. I’ll start using it going forward.

Mark BLR
Reply to  bdgwx
October 8, 2022 2:34 am

a lot easier to read since it is baselined at 0 C at 1990

I missed that.

It explains the ~1°C delta with the SPM graph, which used “0°C = 1765 / pre-industrial”.

– – – – –

Regarding “recent” warming trends, while CMoB’s “well below half” is an exaggeration — from 1979 to 2021/2 it’s more like 60% of the “0.3°C / decade” trendline (for the original “Scenario A / BaU” option) and two-thirds of the Figure A.9 numbers — that doesn’t mean we should try to imply that “the IPCC was 100% accurate in 1990″.

AR6 used the CMIP6 “pathways”, with a common set of “Historical Data” inputs (forcings) updated to 2014 — the FAR only had data up to the late 1980s — and with the massive “inertia” in the Earth’s climate system the outputs (GMST, sea level rise, …) don’t diverge until after 2025.
Up to (at least) 2023 the “counterfactual” SSP5-8.5 and the “in the absence of additional climate policies … medium … SSP2-4.5” scenarios give almost identical results.

A legitimate argument can be made that the models “run hot”, as even the IPCC partially admits in their AR6 (WG-I) report, although I agree CMoB’s (effective) “more than twice as hot” is a bit over the top.

GMSTs_1979-2023_1.png
Mark BLR
Reply to  bdgwx
October 8, 2022 2:44 am

PS : The reasoning for my “60% of …” and “two-thirds of …” estimates can be more clearly seen if you only plot the trendlines rather than the “raw” (12-month rolling averages) anomaly data.

GMST-trendlines_1979-2023_1.png
Old Cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 1:51 pm

Apart from methane, Scenarios C and D don’t appear to diverge until at least 2030, so it’s all rather speculative.

Do you know which greenhouse potential values were being used for methane and the refrigerants? There seems to be quite a wide spread.

bdgwx
Reply to  Old Cocky
October 7, 2022 7:02 pm

What does C and D diverging starting around 2030 have to do with Monckton misrepresenting the IPCC? And why is that speculative?

I’m not sure about details regarding the greenhouse potential values used for the scenarios. Why does it matter?

Old Cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 10:48 pm

Scenarios C & D are essentially the same until 2030, so any difference between them is purely speculative until that divergence.
Without the comparative greenhouse potential values for methane and the refrigerants, it’s difficult to form any informed . opinion of their contribution to the modelled and observed temperature trend.
The Scenario A methane increase seems rather unlikely, as do the Scenario C & D decreases.

Most of the “pause” posts seem to be a nose tweak or perhaps a wedgie for the monotonic increase crowd.

The methane / refrigerant graphs do strike me as pointing to a useful area of investigation. For example, developing and switching to a low-greenhouse refrigerant may prove disproportionately useful.

bdgwx
Reply to  Old Cocky
October 8, 2022 6:52 am

Oh, you’re saying the scenarios C and D themselves are speculative. I thought you were saying Monckton misrepresenting the IPCC was speculative. Anyway, it’s moot. The IPCC scenarios could not only be speculative, but completely wrong and it still wouldn’t matter. That does not justify misrepresenting what the IPCC said.

Old Cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
October 8, 2022 1:20 pm

It does appear to be gilding the lily, and should be corrected.

On the other hand, Scenario C was the “mission accomplished” case, so that is excellent news.

Tom Dougherty
October 6, 2022 10:38 am

“The trend on the entire dataset during the 526 months from December 1978 to September 2022 is 0.95 C°”

The graph displays a trend of 0.59 C. Either the text or the graph needs to be corrected.

SMS
October 6, 2022 11:08 am

When the El Nino hit in 1998, along with the high world temperature that ensued, alarmists hit us over the head repeatedly with the inflated temperature in their zeal to prove that CAGW was real. So I choose to start my graph at the peak of 1998, based on the arguments of alarmists, and draw it to our current world temperature. In other words, the pause has been going on for 24 years, not 8 as you imply.

bdgwx
October 6, 2022 11:22 am

I’m expecting the Monckton Pause to continue to length in the near term based the simple model I developed which fits the UAH data with an RMSE of 0.13 C which is only 0.03 C higher than the 0.10 C (1σ) uncertainty assessed in Christy et al. 2003.

comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 12:12 pm

Reality outgrows models.
comment image

b.nice
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 12:37 pm

LOL.. two FAKE models with assumption built in.

NOT SCIENCE

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 2:53 pm

Spaghetti alert!

Charles
Reply to  bdgwx
October 6, 2022 8:38 pm

Can you provide numerical values for the parameters: C02, EMSOlag5, AMOlag2, PDOlag2, AODvolcanic parameters ?

I want to reproduce your results, and also use the correct units.

What happens when you run your model (with these same coefs) further foward ?

At 1979, with no CO2, you model gets the same value as with CO2 ? I guess for the model this is OK, but if you run the model further backwards, how is the Co2 concentration specified ?

bdgwx
Reply to  Charles
October 7, 2022 7:10 am

Charles said: “Can you provide numerical values for the parameters: C02, EMSOlag5, AMOlag2, PDOlag2, AODvolcanic parameters ?”

UAH: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

CO2: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

ENSO: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/oni.ascii.txt

AMO: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.amo.dat

PDO: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat

AODvolcanic: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015jd024313

Charles said: “What happens when you run your model (with these same coefs) further foward ?”

That’s what I did. I started the model in the 1980 and ran it forward. I can make future predictions with the model by plugging inputs for the future as well. CO2 and volcanic AOD are relatively easy to predict several months out. And since the UAH response lags ENSO by 5 months and AMO/PDO by 2 months I get 2 future months with no effort. Extending it behind 2 months requires me to get the ENSO, AMO, and PDO predictions from long lead time global circulation models like the CFS, but the skill of those GCMs drops with each additional month of lead time. I don’t use this model for predictions more than 2 months out. I only use the model to demonstrate how a model based on CO2 is consistent with not only the warming trend, but also the month-to-month variation and extended pauses.

Charles said: “At 1979, with no CO2, you model gets the same value as with CO2 ? I guess for the model this is OK, but if you run the model further backwards, how is the Co2 concentration specified ?”

I can’t run the model for data prior to 1979 because it doesn’t exist (UAH started in 1978/12).

Charles said: “I want to reproduce your results, and also use the correct units.”

Yes. Please do. Maybe you can get a model with a lower RMSE. Though you’ll probably have to incorporate more terms. I trained the model using recursive descent to find the optimal coefficients for each term so I’m reasonably confident that given these terms the model is as good as it gets. I will say that Christy et al. 2003 assessed the uncertainty of the UAH at 0.10 C and my model already has a lower RMSE of 0.13 C. That means there is probably only 0.03 C of skill up for grabs.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 8:25 am

my model already has a lower RMSE of 0.13 C.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Divide it by a hundred! Go for it!

Richard M
Reply to  bdgwx
October 7, 2022 11:02 am

Your AMO/PDO effects are too low and not simple linear values. ENSO is just noise but does have trend effects. That will become obvious when the AMO phase change occurs.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard M
October 7, 2022 11:05 am

I’ll test any model you want me to. Give me the formula and I’ll report the RMSE.

October 6, 2022 11:56 am

since temperature is not a linear function of time it is wrong to fit an aphysical linear model to it.
full stop.

b.nice
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 12:40 pm

Yep, the actual warming has only come at strong El Nino events

Using those steps to create a linear “trend” is WRONG.

But without them.. THERE IS NO WARMING.

CO2 cannot be the cause of warming, if there is no warming

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 1:16 pm

No real time-series data is perfectly linear, always having noise in the form of instrumental error and minor influences from variables other than the independent-variable time. Are you advocating that linear regression should never be used for time-series data analysis?

Instead of making unsupported assertions, how about explaining what you mean and why we should believe you?

PaulID
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 6, 2022 2:29 pm

Because that is not Mosher’s MO all cryptic drivebys is what he has

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 9, 2022 11:45 am

I see that I got a negative vote. I guess that someone isn’t in favor of explanations and prefers dogmatic assertions.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
October 6, 2022 5:12 pm

Mosher you are such a sad loss to the scientific community.

Gunga Din
October 6, 2022 1:08 pm

According to their hypothesis about Man’s CO2 causing CAGW, there shouldn’t be any “pauses” at all. Man’s CO2 and other of Man’s GHG’s have been on a steady rise.
There have been pauses, now and in the past.
Hypothesis nullified.
(Gosh! Maybe “Climate Change” is natural after all!)

bdgwx
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 6, 2022 2:11 pm

See my trivial model above which not only predicts the current pause, but others before it. It also predicts that the pause will likely lengthen in the near term as La Nina gets extended to its 3rd consecutive NH winter. If we remove the CO2 component from the model we actually lose the ability to predict individual pauses with the model.

Also between 1979 and 2021 the CMIP5 suite of models predicts that about 22% of the months should be included in a pause lasting 7.5 years. UAH showed about 25%. It’s not a perfect prediction, but it’s pretty good. I did the analysis several months back. Hopefully I can get time to redo the analysis for 8.0 year pause lengths.

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 1:09 pm

A powerful wave of Arctic air from Canada is coming into the central US. Temperatures will drop below zero C at night and there will be snowstorms in places. The temperature drop will be dramatic.
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 1:19 pm

Sorry.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
John V. Wright
October 6, 2022 1:34 pm

I know, I saw it on the BBC news. Oh….er…hang on….no, I didn’t….

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 2:31 pm

Cooler air to finally return to much of western US
Forecasters say a big change will begin Monday. A dip in the jet stream is expected to move into Washington before dropping even farther south Tuesday and Wednesday. Although the West Coast will cool down, the biggest effects may be felt farther east.
“Some locations could see nearly a 20-degree drop within 12 hours,” said Massey.
comment image?w=632

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 2:40 pm

La Niña is working and will continue to work.
“Recent downpours have pushed Sydney, Australia, to its wettest year on record, as more than 7 feet (2,134 mm) of rain has inundated the region so far in 2022.  
On Friday morning local time, Sydney’s Observatory Hill weather station recorded more than 87 inches (2,200 mm) of rain since January 1, 2022, eclipsing the previous annual record of 86 inches (2,194 mm) set 72 years ago in 1950. A deluge that unleashed more than 3.50 inches (91 mm) of rain across the city Thursday morning into Friday was responsible for stamping a new mark in the weather history books. Weather records have been kept on Observation Hill since 1858.
To put that amount of rain into perspective, Sydney, the capital of New South Wales, averages about 39 inches (1,000 mm) a year.”

Old Cocky
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 3:04 pm

There seems to be an Indian Ocean Dipole component as well.

I’m not sure that 3 1/2 inches counts as a deluge – it’s nothing unusual.

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Old Cocky
October 6, 2022 10:41 pm

There are still three months left in the year, and SOI is high.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 6, 2022 10:48 pm

Oh, yes. We will doubtless get a hell of a lot more rain this year.
Nothing has really dried out, so there are sure to be more floods as well.

Bellman
October 6, 2022 3:19 pm

Interesting that the current end date for the pause is more or less exactly where temperatures would be if a linear trend over the entire data set.was correct. Also, this is very close to the actual current monthly temperature.

20221006wuwt1.png
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
October 6, 2022 3:23 pm

It’s still a bit warmer if the trend up to the start of the pause had continued to the current date.

20221006wuwt2.png
Reply to  Bellman
October 6, 2022 3:40 pm

Somehow “Bellman” has failed to state what the long-term trend is, and how it compares with the 0.34 K/decade confidently predicted by IPCC in 1990.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
October 6, 2022 4:26 pm

I assumed you mentioned it in the head posting, you usually do.

Ignoring uncertainties, it’s around 0.134°C / decade. Up to the start of the pause it was 0.110°C / decade.

Your 0.34K/decade is a made up figure which does not appear in the very rough predictions made in the 1990 IPCC report. According to a Christopher Monckton the actual prediction from the IPPC 1990 report was

IPCC (1990), at page xxiv, predicted near-linear global warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] C° over the 36 years to 2025, a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] C°/century.

The trend since 1990 has been 0.138 / decade, slightly below the minimum range.

Of course, if we can cherry pick starting dates the trend since July 2007 has been 0.281°C / decade. So for the last 15 years and 3 months the warming trend has been exactly as predicted by the earliest IPCC report. But who would look at such a short period as having any meaning.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
October 6, 2022 4:32 pm

Of course, all this is only looking at the slowest warming satellite data set. Surface data sets show warming rates of between 0.170 and 0.210°C / decade since 1990.