The New Pause Lengthens to 8 years 1 Month

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Just in time for the latest UN Assembly of Private Jets at a swank resort in Egypt, the New Pause has lengthened again. It is now 8 years 1 month, calculated as the longest period for which there is a zero least-squares linear-regression trend up to the most recent month for which the UAH global mean surface temperature anomaly is available:

The trend on the entire dataset during the 527 months from December 1978 to October 2022 is 0.59 C°, equivalent to a modest and beneficial 1.34 C°/century:

If global warming were to continue at 0.134 C°/decade for 77 years to the turn of the next century, there would be just 1 C° more global warming this century. Is that a crisis, emergency, catastrophe, cataclysm or apocalypse? No. It is a good thing.

Why, then, the continuing worldwide pandemic of panic about the mildly warmer weather we are enjoying? In Britain this summer, for instance, we had a proper heatwave for a few days. Where’s the net harm in that?

The reason for the hand-wringing and bed-wetting is that policy continues to be made on the basis of computer predictions which have long been proven wildly exaggerated by mere events. In 1990, for instance, IPCC predicted that by now the warming rate should have been not 0.134 but 0.338 C°/decade:

At the same time, IPCC predicted that midrange equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 would be 3 C°. Corrected for the reality/prediction ratio 0.134 / 0.338, that long-falsified prediction should have been reduced to 1.2 C°. But that is below the already-harmless 2 C° lower bound in IPCC (2021), and even below the 1.5 C° lower bound in IPCC (1990).

If the global classe politique were not innumerate, someone would have asked IPCC how it justified increasing the lower bound of its prediction by a third even though observed warming has proven to be only 40% of the original midrange prediction.

There are some who argue that IPCC (1990) had very greatly overstated the trajectory of business-as-usual emissions compared with subsequently-observed reality. That being so, why has IPCC not revised its business-as-usual trajectory to bring it somewhat into conformity with observation, and why has IPCC not consequently reduced its medium-term warming predictions?

But let us pretend that all the snorting and honking, whining and whinnying, twittering and twattling at Sharm-al-Shaikh will lead to anything other than the continuing bankruptcy of the Western economies as unaffordable energy drives our staple businesses into the willing arms of Communist China.

Let us pretend that the world will continue to ignore the observed reality that global warming is and will continue to be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial, and that all nations will move together to attain net zero emissions by 2050 (the British Government’s fatuous and economically suicidal policy).

That won’t happen, of course, because 70% of new emissions these days are in nations wholly exempt from any obligation, legal, moral, religious or other, to forswear their sins of emission:

But let us yet again ignore mere reality, just as the private-jetsetters of Sharm al-Shaikh will do, and pretend that by 2050 the whole world will have fallen to its knees, craved Gaia’s forgiveness for its sins of emission, and abandoned entirely the use of coal, oil and gas for static and electricity generation.

In that event, a startling fact must be – but has not hitherto been – taken into account. We have plentiful iron and steel, for there is a lot of it about. And when we build good, solid coal-fired power stations or gasoline-fired autos, they go on running for up to half a century. When I was a lad I used to roar through the countryside on a Triton motorcycle that was then 20 years old. There are hundreds of examples still on the roads 70 years after they were built, even though they are ridden hard and fast by hoons and hooligans like me. They endure.

However, in the Brave New World of net-zero emissions, iron and steel will play a far smaller role. Instead, we shall be dependent upon what are known to geometallurgists as the techno-metals, the rarer, fancier, very much costlier, less-recyclable metals needed to make onshore and offshore windmills, solar panels, electric buggies and their batteries, and, above all, static batteries to provide backup power at sundown when the wind drops.

Quietly, for several years, a leading geometallurgist at a national geological survey somewhere in the West has been working out how much of each techno-metal would be needed to attain net-zero emissions.

I must not say who he or she is, for the blanket of the dark is descending, and those who are quietly doing serious work that questions the official narrative the climate question are persecuted beyond endurance if they put their heads above the parapet. Indeed, a leading conference on climate change from a skeptical perspective has just written to tell me that its next session will be held in secret because the Government in question would otherwise be likely to ban it.

The geometallurgist has produced a 1000-page paper setting out, with detailed calculations, just how many megatonnes of techno-metals will be needed to attain net zero. Based on those calculations, I have looked up the prices of just seven of the techno-metals in question – lithium, copper, nickel, cobalt, vanadium, graphite and germanium:

Just to get to the first ten-year generation of net zero energy infrastructure, we shall need almost a billion tonnes of lithium, which, at today’s prices, would cost nearly $60 trillion. But a billion tonnes is more than 9000 times the total global output of lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide in 2019.  Known reserves are a tiny fraction of the billion tonnes we need every ten years.

Indeed, according to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, if Britain were to abandon real autos and continue with the present government’s heroically stupid policy of replacing all new autos with electric buggies by 2030, some three-quarters of existing annual lithium production would be required. The rest of the world will have to go without.

China is responsible for some 95% of lithium mining and production. Peking supported the Taliban by ordering Mr Biden to withdraw all troops precipitately from Afghanistan. He readily consented not even to retain hard-point defence at Kabul and Baghram air bases, even though the cost of such focal strongpoints would be minimal and the Taliban, with covert Chinese support, had previously tried and failed to capture Baghram.

In return for Peking’s assistance in getting Western troops simply to pull out, and to retreat so precipitately that $85 billion in valuable military materiel was left behind as a gift to the People’s Liberation Army/Navy, China was rewarded with control of the vast lithium deposits in Afghanistan, by far the world’s largest.

China has also been quietly buying up lithium mines and processing plants all over the world. When I recently pointed this out at a dinner given by a U.S. news channel at London’s Savoy Hotel, a bloviating commentator who was present said that Britain would be all right because we had a large deposit of lithium in Cornwall. “Yes,” I snapped back, “and China owns 75% of that mine.” The bloviator had no idea.

Recently, this time at the Dorchester, another swank London hotel, I met the guy who gives strategic advice to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. He too must remain nameless to protect him from the Rufmord – Goebbels’ word for deliberate reputational assassination – directed at all of us who have come to realize that climate Communism is a (for “a” read “the”) clear and present danger to the West.

He told me he had recently negotiated a deal on behalf of the Chinese to acquire control in perpetuity of all minerals, including large deposits of rare earths, in a certain African country for a mere $300 million. The ruler had promptly spent the money on three private jets. China would like us to call such bilateral deals “the belt and road initiative”. Internally, however, the Communist Party calls this “wolf-warrior diplomacy”. We call it debt-trap diplomacy.

In south-western Greenland, where large lithium deposits have been discovered, the Chinese have a placeholder stake. But if Greenland fails to make even a single loan repayment to China on time, the entire deposits become China’s exclusive property in perpetuity.

And that is just lithium. Much more could be said about it. However, after persistent importuning by the likes of me, the Western intelligence services have at last begun to wake up to the strategic threat posed not by net-zero emissions but by the insane policies, targeted exclusively against the West, that are supposed in theory to address it. Therefore, the Five Eyes – the five leading Western nations – have now joined forces at long and very belated last to try to find new deposits beyond the influence or reach of China. Australia and Arizona are both proving to be useful here.

The other six listed metals are also in grossly short supply to allow global or even regional net zero. China knows this full well, which is why Peking announced a month or two back that it would build 43 new, large, coal-fired power stations. And China is the nation praised to the skies by the Communists who control the conferences of the parties, for its supposed commitment to net zero. It is indeed committed to net zero, but only in the hated West.

As anyone who knows anything about finance will at once understand, now that the former free market in energy has been replaced by a managed market, the consequent sudden dash for net zero, even confined (as it is) solely to Western countries, will cause a dramatic surge in the prices of all metals, including the seven listed above. For the law of supply and demand is not up for repeal.

In short, as we skewer our economies in the name of Saving The Planet, the commodities economy of Russia will make an even larger fortune from the inevitable and dangerous increases in the cost of the techno-metals necessary to the new energy infrastructure than the Kremlin is already raking in from the increases its economic advisers know would result from its special military massacre in Ukraine.

China, too, will make an even larger fortune from the rampant coming increases in the prices of lithium and the other techno-metals that Peking substantially controls than it already makes from the transfer of Western heavy industries to the East as they are driven to closure here by the ever-increasing cost of electricity whose sole cause is the strategically dangerous, climatically pointless and economically nonsensical pursuit of net zero emissions.

Such weak, insubstantial figures as Sunak, Biden, Trudeau, Scholz, Macron, Ardern and Albanese, who strut the corridors of impotence, are handing over the economic and political hegemony of the world from democratic hands in the West to dictatorial hands in the East: from freedom to tyranny, from constitutionalism to Communism.

It may be said of the West in general what the Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana said of England: “The world never had sweeter masters.” When the now-failing West, fooled by climate Communism, is at last laid to rest, the world will not be a happier place for our passing.

4.8 53 votes
Article Rating
780 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ron long
November 3, 2022 6:10 pm

I love reading Lord Monckton’s update on the PAUSE and other associated fables and follies. I just wish he wouldn’t hold back so much and go ahead and let it all out.

Reply to  ron long
November 4, 2022 1:43 am

Monckton has AN EGO PROBLEM — writing about an 8 year one month “pause” … only one month after writing about an 8 year pause.

He is ineffective as a climate realist because he attaches unrelated politics to climate science. And presents his politics in a heavy handed manner, designed to repel everyone who does not share his right wind beliefs.

To persuade people CAGW is nothing more than a failed prediction, a climate realist must focus on science and how wrong predictions are not science. Not politics.

The 8 year “pause” is part of the argument. The same pause argument does not have to be made every month. There have been many pauses in the global warming since the cold 1690s. Not one of them signaled the end of that long global warming period since the 1690s. The latest pause may be different — a trend change — but no one knows if it is.

What the latest pause tells us is that even with CO2 emissions gradually increasing, the average temperature has not changed at all in the past 8 years.

The CO2 – temperature correlation keeps changing, so how is climate science “settled”?

1940 to 1975 = CO2 up and average temperature down
1975 to 2016 = CO2 up and average temperature up
2016 to 2022 = CO2 up and no change in average temperature

So which CO2 – average temperature correlation is “right”?

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Simonsays
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 3:00 am

Looks like you are close to pushing the escalator argument.

https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Reply to  Simonsays
November 4, 2022 4:02 am

I am saying the escalator argument has been correct so far, and the 2016 to 2022 pause could be the same meaningless pause. Or it could be a change in the long term trend.

We won’t know that for a few years, but all previous “pauses” since the 1690s. with one lasting 35 years, from 1940 to 1975, were NOT signals of a change in the warming trend. In fact, the warning trend accelerated after the 1940 to 1975
“pause”

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 4:15 am

Looking at the link provided by Simonsays I’d say both the escalator and straight line increase forever are both wrong it looks more like the upwards increase in a cycle, and the top of the increasing part of the cycle ended around 2007. My 1960s maths teacher would not have accepted a straight line through that data

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
November 4, 2022 5:13 am

In response to Ben Vorlich, any trend-line is merely a representation. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages, but Prof. Jones of East Anglia used to say that the least-squares linear-regression trend was the simplest way to derive a trend from stochastic temperature data. That simple method is, therefore, used here.

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 5:12 am

The longer pauses are indeed signals that the warming trend is not the relatively uniform warming trend predicted by the climate models. The point is that the models indicate that pauses longer than about 10 years are not possible. When a longer pause did occur, the modellers scrambled to claim that actually pauses could be a bit longer, but proper science does not accept such post-hoc adjustments.

But of course, the climate modellers are not doing proper science.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 4, 2022 5:49 am

Amen to Mike Jonas’ interesting comment. In 2008, NOAA’s State of the Climate report said that Pauses longer than 15 years would indicate the models were running hot. The then Pause went on to endure for 18 years 9 months (HadCRUT4) or 18 years 8 months (UAH).

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 4, 2022 7:42 am

Mike Jones said: “The longer pauses are indeed signals that the warming trend is not the relatively uniform warming trend predicted by the climate models.”

Climate models do not predict a uniform warming trend.

From 1979/01 to 2022/10 CMIP5 predicts that 20% of the 526 months would be included in a pause lasting 8 years. UAH shows 23% of the 526 months as being included in a pause lasting 8 years. It’s not perfect, but it’s a pretty good prediction.

Mike Jones said: “The point is that the models indicate that pauses longer than about 10 years are not possible.”

CMIP5 predicted that 14% of the 526 months would be included in a pause lasting 10 years. UAH shows 17% of the 526 months as being included in a pause lasting 10 years. Again, it’s not perfect, but it’s a pretty good prediction.

I encourage you download the data and verify this yourself. The data can be downloaded at the KNMI Climate Explorer.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
bdgwx
Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 4, 2022 1:04 pm

I don’t see where Monckton is refuting the CMIP5 data showing that pauses are expected in that post.

I do see where he mispresented what the IPCC actually predicted though. I hadn’t realized his misrepresentation’s extended back to 2014.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 4, 2022 8:00 am

The models are intended to scare people, not for accurate predictions. The have worked for that devious purpose in spite of the fact that they have been inaccurate for 40 years, excluding the Russian INM model that is in the ballpark of reality

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 8:29 am

Comparing the 42 models from the CMIP5 suite to BEST over the period 1880-2020 the INMCM4 (Russia) with a trend of +0.063 C/decade. The best model is IPSL-CM5B-LR (France) with a trend of +0.088 C/decade. The BEST trend is +0.087 C/decade. The CMIP5 ensemble mean had a trend of +0.079 C/decade.

I encourage you to download the data and verify this yourself. The data can be downloaded at the KNMI Climate Explorer.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
November 4, 2022 10:36 am

Look at the values you are quoting! 0.088 °C per decade? That is 0.0088 °C per year for God’s sake.

Does anyone truly believe that the resolution of temperature measuring equipment in the field could possibly support measurement resolutions of 8 ten-thousandths of a degree Centigrade? These are values that are read from a calculator with multidigit displays and no idea at all of significant digits!

Come on bdgwx, all you do when you quote these kinds of figures is validate climate scientists who have no clue about physical measurements.

If a number is calculated that is beyond the place to which it is actually measured, and are therefore certain of, the integrity of what this number is representing is compromised. These numbers you are quoting have no integrity whatsoever.

No where in the field can temperatures be measured to this resolution or even to 1 one-hundredths of a degree. How many real scientists do you think are sitting around laughing their butts off when these kinds of figures are thrown around from field measurements of temperature?

JBP
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 4, 2022 6:48 pm

8.8 thousandths………?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  JBP
November 5, 2022 6:34 am

Yeah, I miscounted. The old eyes don’t always see the phone properly. The same argument still does apply. Even 8 one-thousandths is far beyond the measurement resolution of a field instrument and just too far inside the error interval as quoted by NOAA in its weather station documentation to be valid.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 4, 2022 7:46 pm

Come on bdgwx, all you do when you quote these kinds of figures is validate climate scientists who have no clue about physical measurements.

Do you say the same about Monckton calculating the 30 year old IPCC projections to the same number of decimal places? 0.338 °C / decade.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 6:36 am

CM does not use field thermometer readings for his calculations does he? Therefore, you need to address the error interval yourself.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 5, 2022 8:21 am

The trend had nothing to do with readings, it’s the trend Monckton claims the IPCC made, based on an estimate made to one decimal place, i.e. 1.8°C warming from per-industrial times to 2030, and a lower and upper range from 1.3 to 2.7°C.

Monckton then subtracts, and estimate of warming up to 1990 of 0.45°C, based on HadCRUT data which definitely does depend on field thermometer readings dating back to 1850.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
November 4, 2022 10:39 am

These all assume an uncertainty at the hundredths or thousandths digit. An uncertainty as large as +/- 0.1C would subsume all of these so that they are indistinguishable from each other.

As has been pointed out over and over and over again the uncertainty of the global average temperature is *at least* two to three orders of magnitude greater than the values being given.

Since temperatures for much of the interval were recorded to the nearest units digit, resulting calculations should have no more precision than that. Again, that means the trends you are trying to identify get lost in the gray areas of uncertainty and precision.

Reply to  bdgwx
November 4, 2022 11:34 am

Comparing models for the period from 1880 to 2020? Are you kidding me. Almost the whole period was HISTORY before the CMIP5 models made “predictions”.

Any model can be programmed to predict the past. Anyone can predict the past — that means nothing.

The only model whose global warming trend line appeared realistic was the Russian INM model — no others.

“Predicting the past is BS.

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 12:59 pm

RG said: “Any model can be programmed to predict the past. Anyone can predict the past — that means nothing.”

The Russian INM model struggled with predicting the past. In fact, it was one of the worst performers.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
November 4, 2022 3:12 pm

The Russian INM model struggled with predicting the past.”

So what? That does *NOT* mean it is the bad at predicting the future!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 3:11 pm

It’s not “predicting the past”. It is called “data fitting” to the past.

Nelson
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 6:11 am

Temperatures declined from the late 40s to mid 70s.

Reply to  Nelson
November 4, 2022 8:05 am

They did decline, by a lot, as reported in 1975, but temperature history has been “revised” so today the decline is very small or does not exist anymore. And that tells you all you need to know about government bureaucrat scientists.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 9:09 am

The revisions did not have much impact from 1940 to the mid 1970s. The biggest impact was prior to 1940.

comment image

Hausfather, Carbon Brief, 2017.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  bdgwx
November 4, 2022 10:43 am

You can’t revise away physical facts. The open season at the coalport in Spitsbergen (Svalbard) went from three months of the year before 1920 to over seven months of the year in the late 1930s. The Arctic warmed considerably.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dave Andrews
Disputin
Reply to  Dave Andrews
November 5, 2022 3:55 am

That could have something to do with the advent of steam propulsion.

Reply to  bdgwx
November 4, 2022 11:38 am

bdgwx is lying
There was a large amount of global cooling reported for the 1940 to 1975 period in 1975. It has since been revised away.
Anyone who denies that fact is lying.
bdgwx is lying.

1970’s Global Cooling Scare | Real Climate Science

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 12:57 pm

RG said: “It has since been revised away.”

As you can see the revision magnified the cooling vs the raw data for every year between 1940 to 1975 with the biggest revision occurring around 1965

ATheoK
Reply to  bdgwx
November 4, 2022 6:26 pm

The revisions did not have much impact”

😂 🤣 😂 🤣 😂 🤣

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  ATheoK
November 4, 2022 8:37 pm

Spoken like a true disciple of Nitpick Nick Stokes.

ron long
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 3:03 am

Richard Greene, in science it is important to detect a signal against a normal background. You ask “So which CO2 – average temperature correlation is ‘right’?” and the answer is none of them, as cited in the intervals by yourself, is right as there is not causation shown.

Reply to  ron long
November 4, 2022 4:05 am

Normal for our planet is almost constant climate change.
Pleasant is global warming, except in summers
Unpleasant is global cooliing, especially in winters

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 5:00 am

Oh, where is Goldilocks when we need her?

bil
Reply to  Gregory Woods
November 4, 2022 7:40 am

well, we do live in a planetary Goldilocks zone, so she’s with us always, just like climate change.

Reply to  bil
November 4, 2022 8:06 am

Based on local climate reconstructions, I believe today’s climate is the best climate for humans, animals, and especially plants, since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended about 5,000 years ago. We should be celebrating the current climate.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 8:31 pm

In fairness, the Medieval Warm Period was warmer, and therefore better than, today. Ditto for each warm period going back in time till you reach the warmest, and best, climate of the Holocene – the Holocene Climate OPTIMUM.

Burl Henry
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
November 5, 2022 4:29 pm

AGW is Not Science:

Yes, the MWP was warmer than today, but it was NOT better, with world -wide droughts, famines, and the demise of earlier cultures around the world.

The Climate Optimum would have been even worse for humanity.

Richard Goodley
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 3:43 am

we need all angles … Monckton is an extremely valuable partner

Reply to  Richard Goodley
November 4, 2022 4:25 am

Not with Monckton’s minority political views, which is where his diatribes always end up, such as:
 “China is the nation praised to the skies by the Communists who control the conferences of the parties, …”

A good strategy for refuting CAGW is to use the IPCC data and models whenever possible. Use the IPCC models for TCS with RCP 4.5 (mild global warming) rather than the scary worst case ECS with RCP 8.5 (potentially dangerous global warming)

You don’t have to refute any science behind AGW, in an effort to refute the CAGW predictions of doom (aka claptrap). You don’t have to reject all IPCC data and models. And you certainly don’t have to alienate people with politics and motives for climate scaremongering (more government control of the economy and citizens).

The first step to refute CAGW predictions is to teach Climate Howlers the difference between science and predictions. By pointing out that wrong predictions of CAGW are not science. And these wrong predictions have been coming for over 50 years.

The second step is to remind people that they have lived with up to 47 years of global warming, since 1975, and may not have even noticed it. No one was harmed. Those 47 years included 47 years of wrong predictions of CAGW that never happened.

If it is possible to teach Climate Howlers that wrong climate predictions are not science, and that actual warming since 1975 has been harmless — a huge job — the third step is getting them to ask you why the government would lie about a coming climate crisis. That’s the time describe government lying about many subjects, from the Covid fatality rate, to masks. Covid vaccines being safe and effective, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Trump – Russian collusion, etc.

The root cause of the coming climate change crisis hoax is too many people believing everything they are told by their governments, without question. And believing predictions, no matter who makes them, rather than observing their own harmless local climate change, trusting their own senses.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 5:19 am

Mr Greene continues to be woefully, willfully inaccurate. On several occasions the UN’s leading climate spokesmen have indeed praised Communist China. At least twice, Christiana Figurehead, who used to be the head of the COP process, praised China as an example for the rest of the world to follow.

And I need not, I think, remind Mr Green of what Herr Edenhofer had to say about the real purposes of climate policy.

The root cause of the climate hoax, its fons et origo, was and remains the disinformation directorate of the then KGB (now FSB), which had already captured the environmental movement when global warming began to appear in the learned journals, whereupon the directorate seized upon it and began the process of selective targeting of the Western economies that now threatens us with imminent bankruptcy.

MarkW
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 7:59 am

Richard doesn’t like it when the totalitarians he supports are criticized.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 8:18 am

I know what leftists believe in. I know that leftist Climate Howlers are no different than other leftists. We can’t expect to refute all leftist beliefs. But we have a chance of refuting one leftist belief: Scary predictions of the future climate.

It would be more effective to focus on ONE point in an article, rather than a hodgepodge of four different subjects that should be four separate articles:

(1) Consistently Wrong Climate Predictions
(3) Consensus Climate Science
(3) Nut Zero
(4) Leftist Politics

If you can effectively refute (1), then you destroy the foundation for (2 and (3), and at least create some doubt about (4)

Your mention of the KGB (now FSB) is just going to create the impression that you are a tin hat conspiracy nut. There would still be an environmental movement even if Russia dd not exist.

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 5:39 am

The problem is that no politician reads the IPCC report and notices the way the “official” summary is contradicted in the report itself. It also takes a careful read to notice where the IPCC report is being disingenuous. I have noticed instances of older graphs and data being used while more recent graphs were available – but these raised more questions about the narrative than helping it.

Last edited 2 months ago by Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
November 4, 2022 8:23 am

the biggest problem is the IPCC emphasizes ECS with RCP 8.5, while trying to hide TCS with RCP 4.5.

Politicians read the IPCC Report (Summary)
ha ha ha
Maybe they read the Report press release.

Sure there is truncated and adjusted data charts — what would you expect from leftists?

But the real problem is data-free IPCC predictions of climate doom. There are no data for the future climate. Any chart of the future climate is just a wild guess.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 7:51 am

The root cause of the coming climate change crisis hoax is too many people believing everything they are told by their governments, without question.

So, it’s all about politics. I thought you said it wasn’t?

Reply to  Andy Wilkins
November 4, 2022 8:26 am

No, it’s about a lack of independent thinking that makes most people vulnerable to liars such as used car salesmen, government bureaucrat climate scientists and politicians. There will always be liars — that’s human nature. It’s our fault for believing them.

Don Perry
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 11:01 am

You have to remember that at least half the population is below normal intelligence and can’t possibly understand science and rational conclusions. They do, however, respond to political propaganda, regardless from which side it comes. If one is to influence the masses that vote, one must fight political fire with political fire — else, you lose.

Reply to  Don Perry
November 4, 2022 11:42 am

I would bet below average IQ people do not tend to care much about climate change. Nor do they have the political power to use climate change scaremongering as a political tool

John Endicott
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 6:37 am

I don’t know about that. Those low IQ idiots tossing tomato soup on paintings and gluing themselves all over the place seem to care very much about climate change because they’ve bought into the propaganda they were indoctrinated with growing older (I can’t say growing up, because clearly they haven’t) And while the low IQ idiots are not the ones wielding it as a political tool, they certainly make for a useful tool to wield by those who do.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 3:51 am

You cannot take politics out of climate change discussions. The West’s political leaders are using it to control all aspects of societies life. Did you forget what they just did with covid lockdowns? There are still people still brainwashed by ‘the science ‘ of that. As there millions more brainwashed by the climate hysteria.

Reply to  Matt Kiro
November 4, 2022 4:36 am

Sure you can.
You focus on the easiest target first: Always wrong govermment bureaucrat scientist predictions of climate doom. The job of refuting CAGW predictions becomes huge if you add politics and Nut Zero to the mix.

If we can get more people to stop automatically believing predictions of doom, then leftist politics loses its “fear motivator” and Nut Zero becomes irrelevant,

The “science argument” against CAGW has failed since the Charney Report in 1979. The politics argument has failed at least since I became interested in climate science in 1997.
The “there is no AGW” argument never gained attention.

The best argument against CAGW scaremongering is to focus on wrong climate predictions and the people who made them. Every prediction of environmental doom, even beyond climate predictions, since the 1960s has been wrong. That’s our argument. 100% wrong predictions are the easiest target to attack.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 5:22 am

Mr Greene is entitled to his inexpert opinion on what arguments might convince the public. However, at a recent conference of high-net-worth investors and hedge-fund managers in London, the skeptical argument that worked most successfully was the news that each $1 billion spend on attempting to attain net zero would prevent no more than somewhere between 1/2,000,000 and 1/5,000,000 K of global warming.

The rule in communication is that the message must be adapted to the capacities and interests of individual audiences. Therefore, there is no single point or method that is universally right or wrong.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 8:33 am

An audience of high-net-worth investors is not a typical audience of the general public, a FAR larger group of people. I generalized about how to refute CAGW predictions. Investors might be very interested in “why are we doing Nut Zero — what is it based on? The answer: Scary climate predictions that have been wrong for the past 50 years.

I don’t wild guess the costs of Nut Zero or the effect of Nut Zero on the global average temperature because those questions can not be answered. The cost is likely to be huge and the effect is likely to be small — that’s all I know.

I’m not sure why you would mention a group of high net worth investors and assume their interests are completely different than the general public. Many people save and invest their own money.

Don Perry
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 11:06 am

The general public does NOT, for the most part, invest what extra money they might have. They hire someone else to do it for them. The general public respond, mostly, to propaganda, not facts.

Reply to  Don Perry
November 4, 2022 11:50 am

About 55%of American households own stocks or mutual funds. Buying shares of a stock mutual fund is an investment even if other people pick the specific stocks in the fund.

Nearly half of families in the top 10% of the wealth distribution directly held stocks in 2019, and a total of 94% held stock either directly or indirectly. But for families in the bottom 25% of net worth, 4% directly held stocks, and a total of 21% percent held stocks in some way. 

John Endicott
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 6:48 am

About 55%of American households own stocks or mutual funds

Mostly in 401ks, where choices are often limited to a select few funds (rather than individual stocks). When an “average 401k” investor selects, for example, a target date fund to put their 401k money in, they almost always have no clue what they’re actually investing in (go a head, ask any random 401k investor what their 401k allocations are *actually* invested it, you’ll get a glass-eyed stare as a response). They’re very much letting “other people do the investing for them” when they “invest” in such funds.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  John Endicott
November 7, 2022 12:07 pm

Even 30 years ago we had choices of several different funds (e.g. international, small-cap, large-cap shares along with several different bond funds. We could weight our investment in each sector.

Are you trying to say that 401k’s today have fewer choices than we had back then?

John Endicott
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 8, 2022 4:44 am

No, I’m saying that most people investing in 401ks today (as well as back then) don’t know or understand what exactly they’re investing in when they invest in any of those funds, they’re letting the manager of those funds make the investing choices for them. Or as Don Perry put it “They hire someone else to do it for them.”

When you allocated money to a small-cap fund (or which ever funds you invested in) in your 401k, what *EXACT* stocks was that fund investing in? I’d be very surprised if you can honestly claim to know even now, let alone when you first selected that fund as a young employee just starting out.

I’m not saying investing in those funds in a bad thing, I’m saying as investors go, the majority of people investing via such funds are clueless about what exactly they’re investing in, they let other people (the fund managers) worry about that.

Last edited 2 months ago by John Endicott
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  John Endicott
November 8, 2022 6:50 am

And the majority of people who hold 401ks have them because of matching contributions by their employers, who contract with a large 401k company. These typically have only extremely limited options for the employees, such as “large cap”, “growth” etc. Merely trying to discover the individual stocks is pointless.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
November 8, 2022 1:19 pm

Fund managers are paid to know what they are doing. They do the research to understand individual companies and their outlooks. That is work that most of us don’t have time to do or the expertise to do it. The best thing you can do is to balance your portfolio across the various sectors. When tech does bad then staples may be doing well. When small caps are stagnant then large caps may be doing well. The goal for most of us is capital preservation plus reasonable growth. When portfolio growth is greater than inflation, even by a small amount, times are good. When portfolio growth can’t keep up with inflation, like today, things are bad. Try to find an individual stock today that beats inflation – it ain’t easy!

4 Eyes
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 2:45 pm

I think R Greene’s points are reasonable if you think that people understand the difference between science and modelled predictions. Most folks’ eyes glaze over if you talk about the science itself. And most, for reasons I do not understand, do not want to hear verifiable quotes like those of Figures and Edenhofer. I can only guess that my friends don’t want to think that there could be some dark politics associated with CAGW where the big C in CAGW is the supposed reason for the current trainwreck. They find it sort of interesting but really just too hard. However discussion seems to get attention when I point out that the scary catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is dwarfed be the even scarier catastrophic anthropogenic global economic chaos. Everyone can relate to money but not science. When people over 40 see that everything that they have worked hard for could be trashed they pay attention.

Reply to  4 Eyes
November 5, 2022 3:41 am

Four-Eyes is right that it is easier to discuss dollars and cents than feedbacks and forcings with Joe Redneck. That is why, at the swank hedgies’ event at the Dorchester, I told them that each $1 billion of the $800 trillion cost of global net zero would prevent just 1/2,000,000 to 1/5,000,000 degree of global warming. The calculation is simple and robust.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 4:30 am

Mr Greene is his usual sour self. Whether or not he is aware of the extent to which the nominally “environmental” movement is controlled and funded by hostile foreign powers, the head posting does explain the extent to which two hostile foreign powers – Communist-led China and Communist-led Russia – benefit directly from our governments’ feeble-mindedness on the climate question.

Some of the evidence is outlined in the head posting. If Mr Greene does not enjoy such postings, or would rather not read them and comment obsessively and usually negatively and inappositely on them month after month after month, he has only to avoid reading them. For now, at least, he has the freedom to read or not to read whatever he wants.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 4:59 am

I, at least, enjoy your postings on current trends. Forecasting always weights current data more heavily than past data. If that isn’t done then it is inevitable that you will miss any inflection points. No one knows for sure what will happen when the trend ends. It could return to a positive slope and it could change to a negative slope. We simply don’t know enough about all the interacting cyclical processes to make an informed judgement that is anything more than a guess. But it is a *sure* bet that if we don’t track the current trend we’ll never know when one or the other actually happens until long after it happens.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 4, 2022 5:25 am

Tim Gorman is right. If the examination of the real-world data that is the central feature of this monthly column is not useful in demonstrating the stupidity of the climate-Communist Party Line, why are so many overt or covert supporters of climate Communism spending so much of their time trying to sow confusion by attempting to deny the obvious facts that global warming is not happening at anything like the originally-predicted rate and that it is proving net-beneficial.

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 4, 2022 8:09 am

This is where I usually interject my tale of the 5 spheres.
Atmosphere
Hydrosphere
Cryosphere
Lithosphere
BIoshpere

After 200 years of studying these spheres, we still have a long way to go towards understanding how they operate independently.
We have barely begun to study how the spheres interact with each other.

For example, if rainfall increases, then the type and amount of plants that grow in an area will change.
If the plants change, then the things that eat the plants will change
Of course if the things that eat plants change, this will impact plants.
Plants in turn influence how much water gets into the air, which in turn influences how much it rains.

The music of the spheres is beautiful, but complex.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2022 8:40 am

And yet the climate alarmists believe the temp can be predicted by a simple y=mx+b line.

R Stevenson
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 6, 2022 1:58 am

In fact the trend line resembles turbulent flow encountered in fluid mechanics showing the chaotic velocity fluctuations about a mean generating differential equations that cannot be solved.

michael hart
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 8:23 am

I don’t see the reason to be so harsh on Richard Greene.

While I disagree with him about posting/not posting where “the science” falls down, I think he is correct about some other aspects.

Pointing out exactly where the science is flawed has virtually no effect at all on those convinced about impending doom. They neither know nor care to know about the science.

Pointing out that the models are consistently wrong is probably a more effective approach to convince the majority. Many people who know little or no science or finance can understand that if their pension fund hasn’t risen by the amount promised then somebody needs to be called to account.

As to the rest of the political comments, I think that depends on the particular audience. Monckton’s comments probably go down quite well here, rather less so at the New York Times or the Grauniad.

4 Eyes
Reply to  michael hart
November 4, 2022 2:52 pm

Apologies Michael, I replied in a similar vein above. I hadn’t read any further than where I commented. My bad.

Reply to  michael hart
November 5, 2022 3:43 am

Mr Hart asks why I am hard on Mr Greene. The reason is that Mr Greene is as habitually discourteous as he is habitually inaccurate. If anyone here is discourteous, I give as good as I get.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 8:39 am

“Mr Greene is his usual sour self” ,,, coming from the main who gets hostile and often resorts to ridicule and character attacks in response to comments he does not agree with? Now, that’s funny. You should include more jokes in your articles.

Russia does not benefit from the war on hydrocarbon fuels because they are a large exporter of such products

China n benefits from the war on hydrocarbons because manufacturing jobs move to china (and Asia in general) as Western nations deliberately increase their energy prices. Then China becomes responsible for even more CO2 emissions, resulting from manufacturing more products sold to the US, UK, etc., using Chinese coal for electricity.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 5, 2022 3:46 am

Mr Greene should give up whining for Advent. Sourpusses always come across as unconvincing. He has been strikingly discourteous, and now blubs when I give as good as I get. Pathetic!

As to what little substance resides in his latest comment, it is as usual inaccurate. Russia benefits from the very rapid increases in the price of oil and gas, of which Russia is a major global exporter, that have followed the Russian-promoted closure of competing methods of power generation, notably coal, throughout Europe.

The Kremlin’s economic advisers also foresaw that the special military massacre in Ukraine would push up commodity prices yet further. Putin is laughing all the way to the Moscow Narodny Bank.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 5, 2022 6:25 am

Russia does benefit, because idiots in charge in “western” governments who refuse to develop and use their own oil and gas are forced to turn to “other” sources, like Russia. After all, their energy has to come from somewhere, wind and solar will never provide it no matter how much they build. As a side benefit, this elevates the prices for Russian fossil fuel products.

Last edited 2 months ago by AGW is Not Science
John Endicott
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 7:00 am

“Russia does not benefit from the war on hydrocarbon fuels because they are a large exporter of such products”

That’s precisely why they benefit (or did prior to the Invasion). As Western governments (particularly in Europe) “went green” and cut out their own production of such products, they became more and more dependent on Russian Oil and gas because their needs for such products (to keep the lights on, the homes heated, to keep business running, etc) didn’t go away.

Last edited 2 months ago by John Endicott
Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 7:48 am

You say Monkton shouldn’t connect the CAGW scam with politics, but he is right to do this. The climate change hysteria is all about politics. It has nothing to do with climactic reality.
Being so wound up in hard left politics is the reason why such concepts as Nut Zero are trashing Western economies and causing the poorest to suffer the most (left wing politics always hammer the poorest the most)

Reply to  Andy Wilkins
November 4, 2022 8:46 am

Politics of CAGW should be a separate article. Over half the world believes in leftist politics. Should we try to convince them that leftist politics are all wrong, and then fail. Or should we target always wrong climate predictions of doom, where we have a chance of success, because those predictions have been 100% wrong for over 50 years?

Climate Realist claims leftist politics are no good
All leftists immediately stop listening to him.
Is that what you want?

rah
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 10:06 am

Totally disagree! The scam was created by and has been perpetuated by politicians. It is politicians that limit the research and perpetuate the junk “science” that by funding only those that toe the party line,

Reply to  rah
November 4, 2022 11:53 am

If you include politics, the battle is against leftist politics, leftist politicians and consensus climate science. That is too difficult a battle to win.

rah
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 5, 2022 12:37 am

It is impossible to win if you don’t since they hold the purse strings.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 5, 2022 3:48 am

Mr Greene is entitled to his poltroonish viewpoint, but there is a growing movement here in the UK to oppose the entire climate rubbish root and branch. Some of us are willing to fight for Western civilization while Mr Green fights against it.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 8:00 am

Speaking of ego problems …

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 8:23 pm

Since every possible temperature outcome has been connected with rising CO2, the answer is obvious.

ATMOSPHERIC CO2 DOES NOTHING TO THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE.

R Stevenson
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 5, 2022 12:43 pm

What caused the little ice age it appears that the temperature has been slowly recovering with frequent pauses since that time. Although the temperature may continue to rise it certainly will not be down to CO2 emissions but will there be a sudden or gradual declie and what will trigger it.

Mike
Reply to  ron long
November 5, 2022 1:16 am

”let it all out.”
Prediction: The highs of 2016 won’t be seen again for about 50 years.
How do I know? Because I can feel it in my waters. 🙂

Last edited 2 months ago by Mike
Carlo, Monte
November 3, 2022 6:11 pm

Send in the trendologists.

Use of the long-dead BP Solar logo was a nice touch on the one graph.

Amazingly the IEEE Spectrum recently published an article in which the author calculated the total cost of the net-zero hallucination as one-quarter quadrillion, normally the IEEE is all-in for the climate crisis.

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
November 3, 2022 7:26 pm

Send in the trendologists.

Could you actually explain what a “trendologist” is, and if it’s a bad thing or not.

Is it someone who keeps looking for the flattest line they can find, and claims this proves something about the overall rate of warming, or is it someone who calculates the trend over the last 40 years, and then extends it to the end of the century?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
November 3, 2022 9:06 pm

A good definition of a “trendologist” is the mindset that came up with the RCP8.5 scenario where they mindlessly extrapolated current emissions rates, without concern for whether there were sufficient resources to continue “Business As Usual” into the time frame that the models were forecasting for the various emissions scenarios.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 3, 2022 9:36 pm

To believe RCP8.5 is “Business As Usual”, you must have on hand both a trendologist AND a mixologist.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 12:26 am

Bellman

Perhaps a trendologist is someone who looks further back than 40 years and realises the earth has been warmer than today during much of the Holocene.

tonyb

Reply to  tonyb
November 4, 2022 1:47 am

Maybe slightly warmer than today from 5000 to 9000 years ago, which was about one third of the 12000 year Holocene.

Javier
Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 1:05 am

A trendologist is someone who believes a trend in the data says something about the future.

Bellman
Reply to  Javier
November 4, 2022 4:19 am

But the only person doing that here is Lord Monckton. He says that if the current were to persist to the end of the century it would mean 1°C more warming.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 5:20 am

But he also tracks current data so he’ll know when something changes. He can step out of the way of the truck that is about to hit him. Looking backwards at the past will get him run over!

Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 5:32 am

The helplessly unlearned troll who finds fault with my statement to the effect that if the current [warming rate] were to persist to the end of the century there would be about 1 K more warming by then is perhaps familiar neither with elementary arithmetic nor with the uses of the conditional in English grammar.

I did not say that there will be 1 K warming till the end of the century. I did say that if the current long-run trend were to persist the warming by the end of the century would be little more than 1 K. Note the conditional “if”.

Originally, IPCC had predicted the equivalent of 0.34 K/decade warming from 1990-2030. If that rate were to persist, then by 2100 there would be more than 2.5 K warming compared with today – and that is about the rate that IPCC continues to predict.

However, it is legitimate – though, of course, most uncomfortable to the climate-Communist trolls – to point out that if one corrects the flagrant over-prediction made by IPCC in 1990 the warming to 2100 may well be little more than 1 K, not 2.5 K, removing any legitimate ground for suggesting that there is a “climate emergency”.

MarkW
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 8:15 am

Using trends is legitimate when it support’s Bellman’s position.
They aren’t legitimate when they don’t.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2022 8:43 am

You nailed it!

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2022 1:23 pm

I’m flattered, but it’s not something I believe.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
November 7, 2022 7:07 am

You got it in one, Mark.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 1:22 pm

I did not say that there will be 1 K warming till the end of the century. I did say that if the current long-run trend were to persist the warming by the end of the century would be little more than 1 K. Note the conditional “if”.

If Monckton would read my comment more carefully he’d see that I did attribute the word “if” to him.

And I was responding to a claim that a “trendologist” was someone who believed a trend could tell you “something” about the future. Not that it was a firm prediction. Does Monckton believe that the 40 year trend can tell you something about the future? If not why mention it?

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 8:14 am

The lack of self awareness is so strong in this one, it can’t possibly be coincidental.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2022 7:55 pm

The lack of self awareness is so strong in this one,…”
Oh the irony.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
November 4, 2022 8:35 pm

TDS-boi! Still pushing the Alpha Bank hoax?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 4:29 am

Trendologists are people who search for correlations with a single variable and ignore that the data is actually made up from numerous variables that all interact with varying periods and amplitudes.

As such, the trendologists in climate science have settled on CO2 being the boogey man and we are going to spend quadrillions ridding ourselves of that substance which may or may not have any effect on temperatures. The models certainly don’t accurately show what is happening currently and consequently there is no reason to believe that they correctly forecast the future.

Trendologists are scientists who mess with the fundamental data to make it say what they want it to say with no concern about scientific accuracy or relevance. No other scientific endeavor allows such fiddling with data yet it is di rigor practice in climate science.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 4, 2022 1:26 pm

Trendologists are people who search for correlations with a single variable and ignore that the data is actually made up from numerous variables that all interact with varying periods and amplitudes.

And again you seem to be describing Monckton, who only ever compares his pause trends against the single variable of time, and ignores all other influences such as ENSO.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 4, 2022 2:10 pm

Here, for example, is my simplistic model, just using CO2, ENSO and an estimate of optical density. Trained on data up to the start of 2015. IT doesn’t entirely explain the pause period, as temperatures continue to be somewhat higher than would be predicted.

20221104pr3.png
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 4:10 pm

You just performed a data-fitting exercise. Different combinations of constants for each factor will do the exact same fit. So which combination is correct?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 4, 2022 5:11 pm

You just performed a data-fitting exercise.

Yes. That’s the point.

Different combinations of constants for each factor will do the exact same fit.

That seems unlikely. The point is to find the combination that produces the best fit. To be fair, I haven’t got as far as actually measuring the fit over the test period, I’m just judging it by eye, but it doesn’t seem to bad a fit, just a little on the cold side.

So which combination is correct?

I’m not claiming any combination is correct. Just that some produce better fits than others.

The point was to show that I don’t assume as Jim was suggesting, that there is only one variable. But that you can get a reasonable model just taking into account a few variables. In particular, a model that shows how a combination of ENSO and CO2 can produce the so called pause.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 4:50 am

“Yes. That’s the point.”

Data fitting through parameterization is a poor, poor way to do any projection into the future. Multiple combinations of parameters can give exactly the same fit. Which one is right?

“That seems unlikely.”

Really? You think AMO, PDO, and ENSO are not interrelated through other, unstated, factors? If that is true then there is probably an infinite number of parameterizations that will give the same fit!

“I’m not claiming any combination is correct. Just that some produce better fits than others.”

Of course you are! You can’t even admit your own rational to yourself! It’s called self-delusion – and something Feynman spoke about!

“The point was to show that I don’t assume as Jim was suggesting, that there is only one variable.”

How do you know? You don’t even know if the variables are interrelated! If they are then there could easily be just one factor that relates them all!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 5, 2022 10:18 am

Data fitting through parameterization is a poor, poor way to do any projection into the future.

How many more times. I am not trying to project far into the future. I’m seeing how well known components can explain the pause period.

A model based on ENSO and volcanic activity won’t allow you to predict the temperature in a specific month 20 years from now, unless you have a method for predicting the ENSO conditions for then.

Really? You think AMO, PDO, and ENSO are not interrelated through other, unstated, factors?

I avoided using AMO and PDO for that and other reasons.

Of course you are!

I literally told you I’m not. Your biases are showing.

How do you know?

How do I know what? I know that there’s more than one variable at play and that I don’t assume there is only one variable. I produce graphs showing the improvements if you account for more variables. That’s all I’m saying and I do know it.

You don’t even know if the variables are interrelated!

It’s pretty clear that there is little or any interrelation between the three variables I chose. The main reason for including optical density is because of the periods early on where ENSO is high but temperatures fell due to volcanic activity. CO2 is a very smooth progression compared to the other 2 variables.

The only possible interrelation is that there tends to be a slightly bigger rise in CO2 after an El Niño, but I try to reduce that by using an average CO2 value from the previous 12 months.

But it really doesn’t matter. I am not using this to predict what effect any of the variables has, just to show how the three variables can explain the pause. Even if all three variables where identical, the result would be the same.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 11:06 am

How many more times. I am not trying to project far into the future. I’m seeing how well known components can explain the pause period.”

And what is the purpose of doing that? Just mental masturbation? If you aren’t going to use the data fitting to project the future then of what good is the data fitting?

A model based on ENSO and volcanic activity won’t allow you to predict the temperature in a specific month 20 years from now, unless you have a method for predicting the ENSO conditions for then.”

What are models good for then? Just to tell you what happened in the past?

More mental masturbation. You *already know* what happened in the past!

I avoided using AMO and PDO for that and other reasons.”

You said: “Here, for example, is my simplistic model, just using CO2, ENSO and an estimate of optical density. “

Why did you use ENSO then? What does the term “O” stand for in ENSO?

How do I know what? I know that there’s more than one variable at play and that I don’t assume there is only one variable. I produce graphs showing the improvements if you account for more variables. That’s all I’m saying and I do know it.”

Just like the climate models. Add more and more parameters to make the data fitting better and then use that to project the future – regardless of whether the paramaterization is correct or not!

It’s pretty clear that there is little or any interrelation between the three variables I chose. The main reason for including optical density is because of the periods early on where ENSO is high but temperatures fell due to volcanic activity. CO2 is a very smooth progression compared to the other 2 variables.”

It’s not the factors you chose that is the problem. It is the paramterization used to make the factors do the data fitting. You don’t even know if the parameters you used are cyclical or not!

It’s pretty clear that there is little or any interrelation between the three variables I chose. “

Really? There is *NO* interrelationship between CO2 and ENSO? The ocean temps are in no way dependent on CO2? Then why is there so much hoorah over reducing CO2 in order to reduce temperatures?

The only possible interrelation is that there tends to be a slightly bigger rise in CO2 after an El Niño”

You don’t even know the cause-effect relationship. Is ENSO a factor in the causation of CO2 levels? Is CO2 a factor in the causation of ENSO?

But it really doesn’t matter. I am not using this to predict what effect any of the variables has, just to show how the three variables can explain the pause. Even if all three variables where identical, the result would be the same.”

John Von Neumann: “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”

in other words you are doing nothing but mental masturbation. What’s this got to do with the pause?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 5, 2022 4:06 pm

And what is the purpose of doing that?

I’ve explained enough times. You and Jim keep insisting that the pause proves CO2 isn’t working. I show that just by adding ENSO into the equation you can easily see why there is a pause, despite the warming caused by CO2.

Why did you use ENSO then?

Because ENSO has a very clear effect on global temperatures, especially satellite ones.

Add more and more parameters to make the data fitting better and then use that to project the future – regardless of whether the paramaterization is correct or not!

It was Jim who kept complaining that I thought you only needed one variable. Now you’re accusing me of using too of using too many.

John Von Neumann: “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, with five I can make him wiggle his trunk””

Says someone who keeps insisting you can describe the climate as a series of sine waves.

Yes, I’m aware of the dangers of over-fitting. That’s why I’m making the training testing distinction. In case I haven’t said this enough, the fitting of my linear regression is based on data prior to 2015, the training set, and this fit is tested against the data for 2015 to present.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 6, 2022 5:22 am

 I show that just by adding ENSO into the equation you can easily see why there is a pause, despite the warming caused by CO2.”

But that would mean that ENSO is out of phase with the warming caused by CO2 so that a cancellation would occur. But ENSO is a temperature based phenomenon. You are going to have to show how the temperature of one can be going down while the other is going up globally.

“Because ENSO has a very clear effect on global temperatures, especially satellite ones.”

And if global temps are going up then why is ENSO going down?

“It was Jim who kept complaining that I thought you only needed one variable. Now you’re accusing me of using too of using too many.”

He didn’t say you only needed one variable. He said using only one, CO2, ignores the complexity of the biosphere. Your reading comprehension is showing again.

“Says someone who keeps insisting you can describe the climate as a series of sine waves.”

Which I have shown to be the case. That is not arbitrarily picking pararmeter constants to make the data fitting better.

ENSO *is* a cyclical process. So you are using what you are complaining about. Cognitive dissonance describes your mind quite nicely.

“Yes, I’m aware of the dangers of over-fitting.”

It’s not a problem of over fitting. Now you are just throwing stuff at the wall hoping something will stick. The problem is that data fitting using arbitrarily chosen factors does not necessarily have any resemblance to actual reality. Postal rates correlate with the supposed global temperature rise. Using the right scaling constant could give a very good fit between the two. But postal rates have no physical relationship to temperatures.

You could probably do the same thing with the Dow, the NASDAQ, and the S&P indexes if you choose the right scaling constants! Does that mean they can predict the global average temperature anomaly?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 6, 2022 3:34 pm

But that would mean that ENSO is out of phase with the warming caused by CO2 so that a cancellation would occur.”

No idea what you are on about at this point. CO2 and ENSO may be completely unconnected. ENSO is just a natural cycle that causes a warming or cooling from time to time, in addition to any warming caused by CO2. The nature of ENSO doesn’t have to be changing over time, it’s just that if you start a short term trend just before a big phase and end on a negative phase, there will be a natural downward bias in the trend.

That said, I did check the my data and there does seem to be something of a negative trend in ENSO conditions over the last 40 years. Whether that is a result of warming waters or just a coincidence I couldn’t say.

He didn’t say you only needed one variable. He said using only one, CO2, ignores the complexity of the biosphere. Your reading comprehension is showing again.

Concentrate. That was my point.

ENSO *is* a cyclical process. So you are using what you are complaining about. Cognitive dissonance describes your mind quite nicely.

I’m not trying to predict the ENSO cycle. If I could I’d famous. I’m just using the known index value to see how it can effect the global temperature 6 months on.

If you think you can predict all this just using fitted sine waves then show your work.

Postal rates correlate with the supposed global temperature rise. Using the right scaling constant could give a very good fit between the two. But postal rates have no physical relationship to temperatures.

Which is why I didn’t use them. CO2 does have a long hypothesized physical relationship to temperatures, which is why I included it.

And, again, the purpose of this is not to prove that CO2 is the cause of warming. It’s to show that there is nothing in the pause that is inconsistent with CO2 causing warming.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 6, 2022 3:56 pm

No idea what you are on about at this point.”

Of course you don’t have any idea. You know nothing about the real world.

“CO2 and ENSO may be completely unconnected. ENSO is just a natural cycle that causes a warming or cooling from time to time, in addition to any warming caused by CO2.”

There simply isn’t any reason to argue this with you. You simply can’t grasp that both are dependent on the sun insolation and are therefore related by the energy entering the system from the sun.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bellman
November 7, 2022 7:16 am

No idea what you are on about”

That’s precisely the point: You have no idea about any of the factors he’s bringing up in regards to your mental masturbation exercise that show it up for the nonsense that it is.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 5:19 am

A climate trendologist is one that depends on linear regression of samples of intertwined cyclical processes to forecast the future, giving equal weight to past data as is given current data.

It’s like using linear regression to forecast the future of a sine wave. The linear regression will continue with a positive slope long after the slope of the sine wave has actually changed to a negative slope. And then the reverse will happen. The linear regression will ultimately continue with a negative slope long after the slope has actually turned positive again.

If you don’t track current data all on its own you’ll miss the train that is about to run you over. It’s just that simple.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 4, 2022 1:29 pm

If you don’t track current data all on its own you’ll miss the train that is about to run you over. It’s just that simple.”

Define “current”. How many times here have people claimed a change in trend based only on a few years of data only to see it continue as if nothing had happened?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 3:38 pm

I only know what I know. If I ordered lawn mower parts based on what I used 40 years ago I would soon go out of business. If I created 3D Christmas ornaments based on what I was selling ten years ago I would soon be out of business.

You *have* to look at current data in order to tell what the future holds, even for something with as much inertia as the biosphere. And *exactly* what and who are you speaking of who have claimed a change in trend only to see the trend continue along the linear progression formed from 40 years of data?

Too many people today are waking up to the fact that the biosphere *has* changed in recent years (e.g. since 2000). The cyclical nature of the biosphere is rearing its head more every day and refuting the y=mx+b forecasts of the models.

Of course with the inbuilt uncertainty of the global average temperature and the models attempt to predict it, it was going to happen sooner or later.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 4, 2022 4:27 pm

Has it ever occurred to you that changes to lawn mower designs may not be a good model for changes in global temperature?

And *exactly* what and who are you speaking of who have claimed a change in trend only to see the trend continue along the linear progression formed from 40 years of data?

For example, Lord Monckton in 2009 was getting very exited about 7 years of global cooling, starting in 2002. Based on the average of 4 data sets he was pointing out that temperatures had been falling at the rate of 2°C / century. If we use the modern UAH data, which is thew only one allowed, the cooling over that period is actually around 3.3°C / century. Clearly if you assume we must always use the most recent data, you would have to conclude that warming is over and it’s all down from then on.

Yet 13 year on, and the UAH trend since 2002 is now 1.5°C / century, slightly faster than the overall rate, despite a third of that period being the dramatic cooling Monckton identifies.

Too many people today are waking up to the fact that the biosphere *has* changed in recent years (e.g. since 2000). The cyclical nature of the biosphere is rearing its head more every day and refuting the y=mx+b forecasts of the models.

Rather than just stating that show your evidence. How has the trend changed since 2000? How good is your cyclical fit compared with a linear fit?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 4:15 am

Has it ever occurred to you that changes to lawn mower designs may not be a good model for changes in global temperature?”

Has it *ever* occurred to you that even weather forecasters put more weight on yesterday’s weather than the weather 40 years ago when trying to predict what is going to happen tomorrow? Or more weight on what happened last week than what happened in the same week 40 years ago when trying to forecast next week? Or the same for the next month or next year?

It’s *all* cyclical, be it fashion, weather, climate, or lawnmower parts. It’s why a linear regression of samples taken over 30 or 40 years is a piss poor way to project what is going to happen tomorrow, next month, next year, or the next decade. It’s why you *must* give more weight to current data than to past data!

Anyone that has *ever* been in a position with responsibility to the public or to a workforce understands this concept.

It’s why what Monckton is doing *is* important. It is a far better indicator of what is going to happen tomorrow, next month, next year, or the next decade than a linear regression of samples taken over 30 or 40 years where equal weight is give to each sample regardless of when it occurred.

Clearly if you assume we must always use the most recent data, you would have to conclude that warming is over and it’s all down from then on.”

Why would you assume that? Those who say we are headed into more cooling have *physical* reasons for saying so, not a 40 year linear regression. And a PAUSE in warming is *NOT* cooling! It is neutral, it is neither warming or cooling. Again, it is why what Monckton is doing *is* important. It will be one of the first indicators for when the pause has ended and will give an indication of whether warming has restarted or if cooling should be anticipated! AND it shows that the models need a LOT more work if they are to ever be believed as predictors of future climate. If they can’t predict the next decade accurately then why should anyone believe they can predict the next eight decades accurately?

I gave you the evidence. Look at it. Max temps in the US *are* cyclical. Since they are one of the two main factors in the “average” temperature then the average temperature is cyclical as well. And don’t give me the garbage that the US on only part of the globe. If the “global average” is an indicator of anything then it should be an indicator for the US as well. If it isn’t then some place on the globe has to be warming *really* significantly to offset the US contribution to the average and that just isn’t happening.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 5, 2022 7:17 am

Let me add that what you are describing is done every day in call centers. Periods of time are weighted to determine a forecast amount of calls for both equipment and people requirements. Yesterday has the most, then last week, then last month, etc. Certainly, some days are expected to be abnormal such as nationwide holidays, and they don’t fit a regular forecast. You certainly don’t go back 5 years or 10 years to predict a growth rate to forecast from.

As you say, present data has much more weight in determining tomorrow. Unless you have a mathematical relationship that can DETERMINE from multiple variables what tomorrow will bring, the future is entirely unknown.

Evaluation must be done based on past performance of forecast accuracy. If linear regressions give wrong answers, then they don’t perform well, as the pauses show. GCM models don’t perform well either.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 5, 2022 7:45 am

Has it *ever* occurred to you that even weather forecasters put more weight on yesterday’s weather than the weather 40 years ago when trying to predict what is going to happen tomorrow?

And if all you wanted to do was predict next months temperature that would be sensible. There’s a strong AR component in the UAH monthly temperatures, and one of the best predictors of next months temperature will be this months.

But that’s not much use for predicting longer term trends. Nor does it give you any explanatory powers. It’s hot his month because it was hot last month tells you nothing about why it’s hot.

Here’s my time series analysis using lagged CO2, ENSO, and volcanic factors, and also the previous month. It clearly give a better fit. The mean square error during the testing period drops from 0.017 to 0.012. But what does that tell apart from making an estimate of next months temperature?

The prediction for November based on these factors would be 0.18 ± 0.22°C. Last months prediction would have been 0.14 ± 0.22°C.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 7:48 am

Sorry, posted wrong graph. Here’s the correct one.

[or not]

Last edited 2 months ago by Bellman
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 7:49 am

One more try.

20221105pr7.png
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 8:05 am

And as was pointed out to bgwxyz yesterday, RMSE calculations require true values, WHICH DON’T EXIST.

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
November 5, 2022 9:05 am

Nope, all I’m doing is seeing how well I can predict UAH data. It doesn’t matter if UAH is correct or not. Though if UAH isn’t true, neither is the pause.

Also, not that it makes any difference, but I was using MSE not RMSE.

Last edited 2 months ago by Bellman
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 10:23 am

When your uncertainty interval is wider than the stated value you can’t predict ANYTHING!

There is no “how well I can predict” when your uncertainty interval is wider than your stated value!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 5, 2022 10:57 am

Firstly, I never claimed to be able to predict next months anomaly with any accuracy. The fact I give a wide prediction interval is the point.

Secondly, the stated value is just an anomaly, comparing it to the size of the interval is meaningless.

The question you really need to be asking is how well does my aggregate MSE compare with your model based on cycles or whatever.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 11:13 am

Firstly, I never claimed to be able to predict next months anomaly with any accuracy. The fact I give a wide prediction interval is the point.”

In other words you want your cake and to eat it also. Your prediction will be correct no matter what happens! That’s what the fortune teller at the carnival does!

Secondly, the stated value is just an anomaly, comparing it to the size of the interval is meaningless.”

Malarky! The anomaly is the difference of two values. It can be negative or positive. With your uncertainty interval who can tell what it will be, negative or positive?

You are as bad as the climate alarmists who dismiss the uncertainty of the anomalies they calculate by saying that anomalies have no uncertianty!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 5, 2022 4:14 pm

Your prediction will be correct no matter what happens!

No I’m saying that accroding to that model, there’s a 95% chance that November will be between -0.04 and +0.40°C. I have no ability to make a firmer prediction, nor do I care to. Obsessing about month by month changes is fun, but not that relevant.

Still, if you would like to present your own prediction for November, based on all your real world experience of lawn mowers and call centers, we can compare the results in a months time.

Maybe we could turn it into a competition, like the various CET prediction games run on weather sites.

The anomaly is the difference of two values. It can be negative or positive. With your uncertainty interval who can tell what it will be, negative or positive?

My prediction is that it’s much more likely to be positive than negative.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 11:37 am

Obviously you are unaware of the meaning of the term “error”.

And by the appearance of your graph, one of the inputs has to be the UAH—you are using the UAH to predict the UAH.

Around and around the hamster goes…

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
November 5, 2022 3:34 pm

And by the appearance of your graph, one of the inputs has to be the UAH—you are using the UAH to predict the UAH.

Your rapier like intellect caught me out there. What gave it away? Was it the the inclusion of the words “previous anomaly” in the graph’s title? Or was it the fact I was responding to Gorman saying that weather forecasters put more weight on the previous days weather, and I responding

And if all you wanted to do was predict next months temperature that would be sensible. There’s a strong AR component in the UAH monthly temperatures, and one of the best predictors of next months temperature will be this months.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 4:09 pm

Not a surprise that you don’t understand what the problem here is…

A little clue—for your spreadsheeting to have some value, you would be trying to convert the data into a horizontal line.

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
November 5, 2022 4:34 pm

This endless spamming would be much less tedious if you actually said what you meant rather than handing out meaningless clues. Then we could just get on to the part where I explained why you are wrong.

If you are trying to say that you need stationary data for AR, then yes – that’s the problem with Jim’s method.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 6:14 pm

You accuse me of spamming while bgwxyz posts his IPCC graphs over and over and over.

Hypocrite.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 6:24 pm

And as you’ve been told multiple times months ago, I’m done trying to educate you—it is a fool’s errand.

Bellman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
November 5, 2022 6:52 pm

Then stop this spamming.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 9:02 pm

More hypocrisy.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 10:22 am

You are as bad as bdgwx! Your uncertainty is wider than your stated value! Meaning you have NO IDEA of what the prediction for November will be! You can’t tell if it’s going to be hotter or colder!

bdgwx
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 1:28 pm

Bellman said: “The prediction for November based on these factors would be 0.18 ± 0.22°C. Last months prediction would have been 0.14 ± 0.22°C.”

Remarkable. Two independent analysis with nearly identical results.

For November I get 0.17 ± 0.26 C.

For October I got 0.13 ± 0.26 C.

This is especially remarkable since Christy et al. 2003 say the uncertainty on monthly anomalies is ±0.20 C which should set a floor on the skill of any model.

Bellman said: “Here’s my time series analysis using lagged CO2, ENSO, and volcanic factors, and also the previous month.”

Interesting. I didn’t even think about exploiting the auto-correlation. I’ll see if I can amend my model get the uncertainty down a couple more ticks.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
November 5, 2022 2:34 pm

Nonsense, you don’t have Clue One about uncertainty.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
November 5, 2022 3:23 pm

———————————–
Bellman said: “The prediction for November based on these factors would be 0.18 ± 0.22°C. Last months prediction would have been 0.14 ± 0.22°C.”
Remarkable. Two independent analysis with nearly identical results.
For November I get 0.17 ± 0.26 C.
For October I got 0.13 ± 0.26 C.
————————————–

Meaning neither one of you understand uncertainty at all.

When the uncertainty is greater than the stated value you don’t know if things are going up, going down, or staying the same.

All you’ve done is verify that your calculations are useless mental masturbation that provides absolutely zero enlightenment.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 5, 2022 8:33 am

Why would you assume that? Those who say we are headed into more cooling have *physical* reasons for saying so, not a 40 year linear regression.

You’re the one who says you should look at short term trends to predict the future. Hence why the pause is important. I’m giving you an example of a short term trend, cooling from 2002 to 2009, which had zero. What would you have predicted for the next decade in 2009?

People have “physical” reasons for predicting cooling, others have physical reasons for predicting warming. I’m trying to see which predictions are best confirmed by the data.

And a PAUSE in warming is *NOT* cooling!

I’m asking about the cooling trend, the one that Monckton thought was so important in 2009, and suggesting anyone who didn’t recognize it should be investigated for treason.

It will be one of the first indicators for when the pause has ended and will give an indication of whether warming has restarted or if cooling should be anticipated!”

How exactly does it do that?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 10:27 am

People have “physical” reasons for predicting cooling, others have physical reasons for predicting warming. I’m trying to see which predictions are best confirmed by the data.”

You can’t read at all can you?

I said: “And a PAUSE in warming is *NOT* cooling! It is neutral, it is neither warming or cooling. Again, it is why what Monckton is doing *is* important. It will be one of the first indicators for when the pause has ended and will give an indication of whether warming has restarted or if cooling should be anticipated!”

I’m asking about the cooling trend, the one that Monckton thought was so important in 2009, and suggesting anyone who didn’t recognize it should be investigated for treason.”

The issue at hand is the measurement of the pause which you say is garbage! Deflect to a different subject if you want – it is meaningless as far as the measurement of the pause is concerned.

“How exactly does it do that?”

*NOW* you want to play dumb>? OMG!

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 5, 2022 10:48 am

The issue at hand is the measurement of the pause which you say is garbage!

No. The issue I was discussing is your claim that

You *have* to look at current data in order to tell what the future holds, even for something with as much inertia as the biosphere.

And then you asking

And *exactly* what and who are you speaking of who have claimed a change in trend only to see the trend continue along the linear progression formed from 40 years of data?

I gave the example of Monckton in 2009 talking about a significant cooling trend since 2002.

Are you now saying that you don;t look at current data when it shows a cooling trend, but only when it shows a flat trend?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 11:09 am

Are you now saying that you don;t look at current data when it shows a cooling trend, but only when it shows a flat trend?”

Still having a problem with reading, eh?

John Endicott
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 7, 2022 7:25 am

After reading plenty of his posts, I’m pretty sure he’s not playing. He really is as dumb as he seems.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 5, 2022 8:49 am

I gave you the evidence. Look at it. Max temps in the US *are* cyclical.

How can you tell? All you’ve got is a warm period in the 1930s and a warm period in the 21st century. It could be a cycle, it could just be two warm periods.

Were the 1860s just as warm as the 1930s? Are the patterns of warming the same in the 1930s as they are in the 2010s?

Since they are one of the two main factors in the “average” temperature then the average temperature is cyclical as well.

So why not show the minimum and mean temperatures as well?

If the “global average” is an indicator of anything then it should be an indicator for the US as well.

Why? Do you think every part of the world has the same local climactic factors? Was everywhere as warm as the US during the 1930s?

And you are inverting the logic here. You aren’t claiming that is the globe is cyclic then so should the US be, you are claiming that because you can see a cycle in the US then that must also apply to the rest of the world.

If it isn’t then some place on the globe has to be warming *really* significantly to offset the US contribution to the average and that just isn’t happening.

According to UAH, the US has been warming at 0.18°C / decade since 1979. Faster than the global average and about the same as the land average.

Since 2000, the trend has been 0.20°C / decade. So no evidence of slowdown, nor cooling.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 5, 2022 10:33 am

It could be a cycle, it could just be two warm periods.”

You are your own worst enemy. Did you actually read this before you posted it? Did you bother to look up what the definition of “period” is?

So why not show the minimum and mean temperatures as well?”

Because I didn’t have easy access to the minimum temps when writing the post.

“Why? Do you think every part of the world has the same local climactic factors? Was everywhere as warm as the US during the 1930s?”

If the globe is warming then the globe is warming. QED.

Not every place has to be as warm OR COLD as the US. But if the US is not warming then somewhere else has to be warming even more significantly to make up the difference.

And, yes, this has been discussed ad infinitum here on WUWT. The 30’s were a warm period *globally*.,

And you are inverting the logic here. You aren’t claiming that is the globe is cyclic then so should the US be, you are claiming that because you can see a cycle in the US then that must also apply to the rest of the world.”

You are *still* showing that you simply can’t read. Either that or you enjoy being willfully ignorant.

If the US is cyclic then the rest of the globe is as well. If the US is not cyclic then the rest of the globe isn’t either.

What do you think the “O” in AMO, PDO, and ENSO stands for?

John Endicott
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 7, 2022 7:27 am

What do you think…”

That’s the problem, he doesn’t.

MarkW
Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 8:12 am

I suppose a “trendologist” could be someone who claims that since the planet has warmed a bit over the last 150 years, this proves that CO2 is going to kill us all.

Bellman
Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2022 1:33 pm

Firstly, how many people here have claimed that CO2 is going to kill us all. I’ve certainly not. I have been accused of wanting to kill everyone, but that’s another issue.

Secondly, arguments that CO2 causes warming are not primarily based on trends over the last 150 years.

Thirdly, the only person I’ve ever seen conclude anything from a linear trend over the last 150 years is Monckton.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
November 3, 2022 9:32 pm

Monte Carlo’s interesting comment mentions the IEEE paper costing global net zero at $250 trillion. That estimate is well below McKinseys’, which is $275 trillion in capex alone. Allowing for opex too, make that more like $800 trillion. As the head posting shows, just seven of the techno-metals required to attain global net zero would cost $160 trillion – and that is at today’s prices. Given that we need up to 30 times as much of these metals as the entire proven global reserves just to supply a single 10-year generation of windmills, solar panels static batteries to back up the unreliables and locomotive batteries to drive the astronomically costly electric buggies that the Blob will require us to drive instead of real cars, and given the unrepealability of the law of supply and demand, it is likely that the cost of techno-metals alone, for a single 10-year generation of these fragile and useless gadgets, would comfortably exceed $1 quadrillion.

I see that an officious, whining troll has complained about the alleged cherry-picking in the head posting, which published the entire global warming trend over the 44 years 1979-2022 as well as calculating (not cherry-picking) that the longest period without any warming trend up to the present has been 8 years 1 month.

The troll whines to the effect that one should not extrapolate the 44-year trend-line (which the troll inaccurately describes as “40 years”) to the rest of the century. Perhaps the troll would like to amuse itself playing with the data and fitting various polynomial trend functions: however, Professor Jones at East Anglia recommended the least-squares linear-regression method used in this column as the best method to represent the trend. It is, of course, embarrassing to the cherry-picking troll that the trend, if continued to the end of the current century, would imply a warming of little more than 1 K compared with today.

Furthermore, as Clyde Spencer has rightly pointed out, it is the climatological establishment that has hitherto cherry-picked, basing its lurid but proven-erroneous predictions chiefly on the ludicrous RCP 8.5 scenario, which its own authors described as a deliberately-exaggerated worst case.

As Judith Curry has pointed out in a distinguished column reproduced here, it is becoming obvious to all but the fanatics that – as this column has long demonstrated – the true trend is turning out to be somewhere between the two least alarming RCP scenarios. The troll, however, will no doubt continue to whine regardless of the mere facts.

Hans Erren
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 3, 2022 11:14 pm

Given the fact that the CO2 sink is proportional to atmospheric concentration and not to emission (the leaking tyre analogy, per prof. Cees le Pair) net zero does not need to be absolute zero, but 20 GtCO2/y

5682F8E2-6EB5-4C7A-8219-29DFE34FE62A.png
Reply to  Hans Erren
November 4, 2022 4:33 am

Mr Erren’s comment is most interesting. However, even if it were necessary only to abate 60% of our sins of emission each year, only the West is going to do anything about global warming, and it will not succeed in reducing its emissions by more than 20-40%. The rest of the world is paying no attention to the climate-change nonsense.

Hans Erren
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 9:23 am

Agree

4 Eyes
Reply to  Hans Erren
November 4, 2022 3:11 pm

You’re right Hans but try getting a government climate scientist to explain that to alarmist political chief. They don’t want to hear that sort of stuff, although the way things are going they just might want to relieve themselves of the some of the political pain that is staring them in the face. It may not be long before they’ll all be looking for ways of limiting their personal damage.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 4:43 am

No one knows what Nut Zero will cost
It is not feasible
There are no “costable” detailed assumptions
The implementation timing is an arbitrary date.

And when all the Nut Zero spending is done, someone may realize that about 7 billion people in the world, out of 8 billion, were never participating in the Nut Zero pipedream, so CO2 levels will keep rising.

There is no Nut Zero plan — just a vision statement. A cost estimate would be a very rough guess, probably at least +/- 50%.

The Not Zero motto: “Nut Zero is not going according to plan, because there never was a Nut Zero plan.”

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 5:28 am

We already have an inkling of what Net Zero is going to cost. Add up the costs of our 8.2% inflation over the past year and you’ll have a pretty good estimate of the minimum costs going forward.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 4, 2022 6:31 am

Excellent point.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 4, 2022 8:51 am

The US inflation in 2021 and 2022 is the result of Federal Reserve Bank credit expansion in prior years. That expansion was used to indirectly fund government deficits, which were huge in 2020 and 2021. Those deficits were huge primarily because of Covid stimulus spending, not Nut Zero spending.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 10:51 am

That credit expansion was driven by the Democrat’s Green New Deal capital requirements and the welfare payments needed to keep people from starving and freezing under the GND. Covid drove very little in the way of capital requirements, only welfare expense. That welfare expense should have ended with the end of the Covid pandemic, but it has *not*. The capital requirements remain – driven by the Democrat’s killing of fossil fuels and the resulting need for more and more “renewable” infrastructure. Those are going to drive inflation for decades and the costs will be similar to what we are seeing with today’s inflation.

Look at our GDP for proof. As we move out from under Covid our economy *should* be growing by leaps and bounds. Yet, even with all of the new government spending, our GDP is stagnant to negative. That means the *real* economy, which is GDP minus government spending, is not recovering at all. Any growth is directly attributable to inflation alone. And that can only go on for so long until we wind up with a third world economy – the rich elite at the top and everyone else peasants subsisting on scraps.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 4, 2022 12:08 pm

“That credit expansion was driven by the Democrat’s Green New Deal capital requirements and the welfare payments needed to keep people from starving and freezing under the GND.”

Total BS
The President’s proposed Budget for fiscal year 2023 invests $44.9 billion to tackle the climate crisis, an increase of nearly 60 percent over FY 2021. The total Biden budget proposal was $5.8 trillion, so $45 billion is under 1% of the total spending proposed. And there is no green New Ordeal welfare program.

GDP growth includes government spending and always has. Inflation is subtracted using the PCE price deflator for real GDP. No growth is attributed to inflation alone, although one could argue that the PCE deflator understates actual price inflation.

Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 3:28 pm

Using the strategic petroleum reserve *is* a capital expenditure. It is going to raise government spending to refill it. And it is due to the GND. The student loan repayment is another expenditure being forced by the inflation caused by the GND which negatively impacts the ability of the borrower to repay the loans. Inflation is causing a big increase in credit card debt which will impact the ability of the government to raise revenue in the future which will engender even more government borrowing – and the inflation is a direct result of the the GND policies of Biden and his administration.

It goes on and on and on and on.

It is the *real* GDP, i.e. after the PCE, that should be growing by leaps and bounds because of the increased level of government spending. BUT IT ISN’T!

It’s the old Socialist meme of government spending being able to replace economic growth. It’s a perversion of what Keynes taught. The Socialist meme has never worked. It isn’t working now. But it’s all the Democrats have to offer. You can’t fix inflation with government spending. You can only fix it by government incentivizing private economic growth. The FED can only fix inflation by crushing private economic growth – which is exactly where they are heading and the Democrats/Biden continue to fuel the inflationary spiral with more and more government spending. It isn’t going to end well.

John Endicott
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 7, 2022 7:30 am

Those deficits were huge primarily because of Covid stimulus spending,”

And lefties are looking to the “Covid emergency” response as a blueprint for responding to the “climate emergency”

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 5:35 am

Interesting to see how a climate-Communist troll wriggles when confronted with the actually simple calculations that show how disproportionately expensive net-zero emissions would be even if, per impossibile, they were achieved, and even if, per impossibile, there were enough techno-metals to achieve even the first ten-year generation of new energy infrastructure.

It is the simple calculations showing that even if the world were to achieve net zero the warming abated would be little more than 1/6 K by 2050 that are beginning to persuade the classe politique that it is wasting its time, and that bankrupting the West is a sign not of leadership but of monumental stupidity.

rah
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 8:31 am

Actually Michael Mann has a plan to go beyond net zero, what ever that is!

Energy Expert Michael Mann | Real Climate Science

I fervently hope that those down under have a severe early winter when he is there.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 8:54 am

Interesting to see how a climate-Communist troll wriggles

I have been a free market libertarian since 1973 and I don’t wriggle. But you do a great imitation of the TV character created by Johnny Carson: Floyd. R. Turbo

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 6, 2022 9:59 am

… and even if, per impossibile, there were enough techno-metals to achieve even the first ten-year generation of new energy infrastructure.

Interestingly, lithium is being used as the battery cornerstone of the electric revolution, with little concern for recycling.

If we should solve the problem of controlled nuclear fusion for supplying 21st century energy, it appears that lithium will be equally critical to that technology as a blanket to capture neutrons. What if society has mined all the concentrated sources of lithium to make batteries, and dispersed all of that throughout landfills, and there is only diluted, expensive sources available for reactors?

It is not unlike the unthinking farmer that eats his seed corn and has nothing to plant come Spring.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 6, 2022 11:14 am

Oh yeah, unforeseen circumstances that ruin an idea! How does the old adage go, you don’t know what you don’t know.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 8:17 am

So we should just ignore the issue of cost since it can’t be calculated to your satisfaction?

Reply to  MarkW
November 4, 2022 12:11 pm

The claimed need for batteries grossly understates actual claims of battery needs. One could present a more accurate range of battery capacity required for a reliable grid, and then estimate the cost of those batteries. That number would likely be unaffordable, so the estimated cost of the entire Nut Zero project would then become a moot point.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 5:51 am

I cited the Spectrum article off-the-cuff from memory—going back in, the author was quoting the McKinsey $275 trillion figure. From the article:

But a recent attempt to estimate such costs confirms the magnitude of the category mistake. The McKinsey Global Institute, in a highly conservative estimate, puts the cost at $275 trillion between 2021 and 2050. That is roughly $9.2 trillion a year, compared with the 2021 economic product of $94 trillion.

That such a dash of cold water would appear in the Spectrum is remarkable.

Zig Zag Wanderer
November 3, 2022 6:18 pm

They need to hope it gets warmer in the UK. It looks likely that the new nuclear power station is going to be canned
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63507630

That’s going to cause even higher electricity prices!

Last edited 2 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 3, 2022 9:33 pm

So, no nuclear power, no gas-fired power, no coal-fired power. That means no power at all for much of the time, at any price.

Climate believer
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 12:25 am

Makes me wonder why anybody would vote conservative ever again?

Utterly shameful.

186no
Reply to  Climate believer
November 4, 2022 1:58 am

Correct, a decision I made in early 2020, never ever to be rescinded.

michel
Reply to  Climate believer
November 4, 2022 2:08 am

They might do it because the alternative is the Labour front bench, or Ed Davey. In either case you are going to get Net Zero, in both cases further and faster than with the Conservatives, and in the second case it will be so fast you won’t even have time to breathe in.

Climate believer
Reply to  michel
November 4, 2022 3:56 am

I agree about the net zero, but people also like to punish political parties for their betrayal and general elections are really the only time they get to do that.

voting intention.png
Richard Goodley
Reply to  Climate believer
November 4, 2022 3:47 am

I hope they don’t … the Conservative party deserves to die

Reply to  Richard Goodley
November 4, 2022 4:34 am

But then we will be left with the Labour Party, many of whose leading members are Communists. Out of the frying-pan …

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Climate believer
November 5, 2022 6:43 am

Well, when your only choice is a different band of Eco-Nazis, it’s not like there are a lot of good options…

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 12:29 am

A couple of candles made from beef tallow will keep us nicely warm whilst our betters swan around in warm Egypt.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  tonyb
November 4, 2022 10:53 am

You are assuming there will be beef available to supply the tallow! Don’t bet on it.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 5, 2022 6:45 am

Not if the Eco-Nazis have their way!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 6, 2022 10:04 am

Haven’t you heard about the synthetic vegetarian tallow? 🙂

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 6, 2022 3:16 pm

Nope.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 4, 2022 1:12 am

Zig Zag,

history is interesting.

About twenty years ago a planned expansion of nuclear generation stations was scrapped, presumably for the cheaper and faster to build renewables. The fact that wind is a dreadful way to generate electricity, with solar being far worse didn’t seem to matter if indeed the powers that be even understood the difference between conventional reliable synchronous generators and the intermittent and asynchronous renewables. How different our current situation could be had the nuclear expansion been carried out then?

Today, similar arguments are being put forward to scrap Sizewell when the reality is we need many more of the same or very many more, small modular generators.

Yet the white elephant that is HS2 is still being continued with and I expect at increasingly inflated costs. Yes, it is providing a few thousand jobs and will cut journey times by a few minutes (Note journey time not station to station time). where expensive electricity destroys very many times more jobs.

Last edited 2 months ago by Iain Reid
Steven Curtis Lohr
November 3, 2022 6:24 pm

I don’t think anyone will care. The government has already decided we should dry up and blow away. The end of humanity as we know it. Bugs and caves for all but a few.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Steven Curtis Lohr
November 3, 2022 8:04 pm

Caves? Bloody luxury! When I were a lad…

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 3, 2022 9:34 pm

… we ‘ad to write on slates, and in a ‘igh wind it wa’ terrible t’ noomber o’ kids used to fall off that roof.

Geoff Sherrington
November 3, 2022 6:34 pm

Over Australia, the plateau is now 10 years and 4 months duration.
What physical mechanism allows this plateau when the well-mixed gas CO2, alleged to be responsible for global warming, has been increasing steadily since measurements started at Mauna Loa?
http://www.geoffstuff.com/uahnov.jpg

Editor
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 3, 2022 8:30 pm

Maybe because IR comes in bunches that cause warming or in dribbles that explains the pause of which means we are in grave trouble if IR declines to zero then CO2 will be out of a job!

Gasp Horrors!!!

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 4, 2022 8:16 pm

Could be that simple? Why not?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 3, 2022 9:08 pm

A very long time-lag. 🙂

Graemethecat
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 4, 2022 7:51 am

I enjoy asking Warmunists why temperatures actually declined worldwide between 1940 and 1980, at a time CO2 concentrations were increasing steadily.

Reply to  Graemethecat
November 4, 2022 8:57 am

ALMOST ALL OF THAT GLOBAL COOLING HAS BEEN REVISED AWAY — THEY DID NOT LIKE THOSE QUESTIONS !

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 9:21 am

I’m not seeing what you’re talking about. If anything they revised away a good portion of the warming in the early part of the record.

comment image

Hausfather, Carbon Brief, 2017.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
November 4, 2022 10:00 am

I don’t know if you were alive in the 70’s but the New Ice Age scare was very real. Temperatures we’re cooling to an extent that even scientists were concerned. I can tell you in the U.S., the temps were cold, lots of ice storms, and lots of snow in the late 70’s and early 80’s.

Your graph shows none of this. Just a pause in temperature at this time. You aren’t going to convince a lot of people my age that the graph is accurate.

If you believe the media hacks today, then you should also believe those writing during this time! Go read the articles!

4 Eyes
Reply to  Graemethecat
November 4, 2022 3:36 pm

I ask them why the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940, when CO2 was much less, was the same as the rate of warming from the late 70s to now when CO2 content has vastly increased. The responses are either blank looks or “tut, tut – you’ve got to trust the scientists”. People are just not interested in the science themselves. Which is sad because looking at a graph and a crossplot really isn’t that hard. I keep trying though.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 4, 2022 6:26 pm

Geoff … my reading of the data is that there’s been some cooling of Australia’s climate over 10 years and four months but in the ACORN land station mean temperature anomalies, with UAH technically warming but to such a small degree it might be called a lower troposphere plateau.

As per http://www.waclimate.net/australia-cooling.html, in the 124 months since July 2012 the averaged ACORN mean anomaly in the first 62 months (July 2012 – Aug 2017) was 1.037C and in the latter 62 months (Sep 2017 – Oct 2022) it was 1.032C. i.e. slightly cooler.

With UAH anomalies, the first 62 months averaged 0.223C and the latter 62 months was 0.224C. i.e. an increase of 0.001C.

On a shorter timeframe, ACORN anomalies averaged 1.515C from Mar 2017 to Dec 2019 and 0.814C from Jan 2020 to Oct 2022 (0.701C cooler) and UAH averages dropped from 0.376C to 0.129C (0.247C cooler).

The data obviously includes three current consecutive La Ninas and 2019 being Australia’s driest year on record, which strongly influences the shorter term Mar 2017 – Oct 2022 timeframe but provides an interesting mix for the longer term July 2012 – Oct 2022 timeframe.

ACORN surface anomalies have cooled slightly for a bit over a decade and it’s a fact that clashes with the ongoing rhetoric that Australia urgently needs to replace all fossil fuels with windmills and solar panels because the climate is warming and the crisis is worsening.

Early 2012 was a cool period and IF La Nina fades away by March next year, as predicted, will we return to warming trends? Time will tell.

Drake
November 3, 2022 7:40 pm

Lord Mockton,

I am afraid I found one glaring error in your report.

“In Britain this summer, for instance, we had a proper heatwave for a few days.” 

This statement is FALSE. By definition a “heatwave” is 5 or more days, not a “few” which is all that Britain actually experienced.

Otherwise, another well done from me!

Drake

Reply to  Drake
November 3, 2022 9:38 pm

Many thanks to Drake for his kind words. However, his assertion that the head posting contains a “glaring error” is itself a glaring error, for two reasons.

First, the Wet Office, which keeps Britain’s temperature record, defines a heatwave as enduring for at least three days, not five. The heatwaves of June and July each persisted for three days. Secondly, the August heatwave endured for six days, passing even Drake’s five-day test for the definition of a heatwave.

Like an incontinent eructating in an elevator, Drake is wrong on so many levels.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 3, 2022 10:35 pm

Was the high temperature on any of those days more than 5C (9F) higher than the thirty year average high temperature for 1960 – 1989? If not, no heat wave in accordance with the WMO definition.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 4, 2022 2:56 am

But the Wet Office folk make up their own rules.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 4, 2022 9:02 am

The highest temperature during the 1976 UK heatwave was 35.9 °C (96.6 °F), 0.8 °C below the record at the time of 36.7 °C (98.1 °F) set on 9 August 1911. In the Central England Temperature series, 1976 is the hottest summer for more than 350 years.

Phil.
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 4, 2022 9:10 am

The threshold used in the UK was recently updated using the record from 1991-2020 which has significantly raised the required threshold relative to the 1961-1990 period.
Central London required daily maxima of 27ºC based on the earlier period it has now been raised to 28ºC, the area requiring the higher temperatures has since expanded too. Maximum temperatures reached as high as 40ºC this summer.
uk-heatwave-threshold-2022.png

rah
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 10:13 am

The confusion is understandable with the MET definition not agreeing with the WMO definition of a heatwave is.

PCman999
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 11:31 am

Just because the Wet Office redefined a heat wave as lasting 3 days instead of 5, doesn’t make it true on the level of commandments carved in stone.

3 days? Barely time to even notice that the heat was persisting!

And did the UK really get HOT? Something like 35°C?

Reply to  PCman999
November 5, 2022 3:52 am

Something like 40 C. It was wonderful.

John Endicott
Reply to  PCman999
November 7, 2022 7:45 am

It’s not that the Wet Office redefined the term heat wave, it’s that there is no common set definition of heat wave. Different places around the world define it differently.

It takes 5 days in Sweden and the Netherlands but only 3 in Denmark. According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology it’s at least 3 days. In the United States, definitions also vary by region though 3 days appears to be the most common.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Drake
November 3, 2022 11:55 pm

Drake,
There are many definitions proposed for “heatwave” Some countries favour some definitions, others favour others.
Some of the extreme propaganda about heatwaves, like claims that they are getting hotter, jonger and more frequent, is not supportable without adopting certain definitions.
Here is a graphical display of simple heatwave calculations for 8 Australian cities and towns, selected for long duration data and coverage of the land mass of Australia. It has “raw” temperature data, plus government-adjusted ACORN-SAT temperature data, all official from BOM. It shows the heatwave patterns over the longest data sets (starting 1860) and it has summaries of the Top 40 most severe events each year for each station described by the simplest of heatwave definitions.
These simple pictures show no impending catastrophic change. If there is no threat in a simple analysis, why resort to data torture to create an artificial fearful scenario for the future? It is simply poor science being used for activist propaganda.

This link has a lot of data, so please allow download time. Comments for improvement most welcomed. Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/eightheatwave2022.xlsx

James Rouse
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 4, 2022 4:37 am

Lot of effort gone into that spreadsheet.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  James Rouse
November 5, 2022 12:30 am

James,
I do not know where you live, but it is quite easy for people in other countries to make similar graphs and spread the results.
At present, there are too many unsupportable words and not enough evidence.
Geoff S

Reply to  Drake
November 4, 2022 1:51 am

It was hot for a few days in the UK summer.
Panic. Head for the hills. Unprecedented.
No one ever heard of a hot spell in the summer !

Rod Evans
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 2:37 am

Hey Richard, I remember that heat wave back in the summer, My son and I sat on the terrace discussing the lunacy of modern climate hysteria. We manages to get through two bottles of Barolo while doing it! That (two bottles) is something I have not done for many decades. (Other wines are available)
We should look for the positives in all things. Afternoons and evenings in England enjoying the warm air is a rare thing. Drinking with heirs while in agreeable conversation consuming some of Italy’s best, what’s not to like? If that is what a warmer climate brings us, then we need ever more of it.

Reply to  Rod Evans
November 4, 2022 3:00 am

BB C headline:
“Two UK alcoholics claim unprecedented UK heat wave is nothing unusual”
ha ha

Reply to  Drake
November 4, 2022 8:59 am

MONCKTON DOES NOT MAKE GLARING ERRORS. He does get carried away with politics and communism in his articles, and is liable to call you a COMMUNIST IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM.

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 5, 2022 3:52 am

Don’t whine.

John Endicott
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 7, 2022 7:47 am

But whinning is the only thing he’s good at.

Bellman
November 3, 2022 7:47 pm

To fill in some of the blanks, the rate of warming since October 2014 is -0.00 ± 0.52 °C / decade. In contrast the rate of warming since October 2012 is +0.20 ± 0.38 °C / decade, and since October 2010 it’s been +0.32 ± 0.29 °C / decade.

Over the last 16 years and 2 months the rate of warming has been +0.25 ± 0.20 °C / decade.

None of these figures mean much, but it is a little interesting that the rate of warming over a period twice as long as the pause, has a rate of warming almost twice as fast as the overall rate.

Richard M
Reply to  Bellman
November 3, 2022 8:37 pm

With about 5 months of cool La Nina temperatures on the way the pause start date could move back earlier in 2014. It could reach 9 years but probably won’t go back much further until we get an AMO phase change or major volcanic eruption.

Reply to  Bellman
November 3, 2022 9:40 pm

A whining troll is cherry-picking again. Even the troll’s cherry-picked warming rate is little more than two-thirds of the official midrange prediction made by IPCC in 1990.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 1:53 am

You cherry pick the official IPCC wild guess for several centuries (ECS) and ignore the more reasonable IPCC wild guess for 70 years (TCS)

Rod Evans
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 2:41 am

Ha Ha Lol! I like what you did there Richard. Can I just say, my wild guess is superior to any other persons wild guess for obvious reasons…..

Reply to  Rod Evans
November 4, 2022 3:02 am

But IPCC is the “official” wild guess, made by official officials. With big computers too.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 4, 2022 4:38 am

Mr Greene continues to be as unbecomingly sour as he is disfiguringly inaccurate. He has, as usual, failed to follow Eschenbach’s Rule: if you want to produce a driveling comment, then state in terms the point in the head posting upon which you propose to drivel.

Let him go and look up IPCC (1990, p. xxiv). The reference is plainly given on the back of the envelope in the head posting. And then let him – just for once – apologize.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 6:43 am

CMoB said: “Let him go and look up IPCC (1990, p. xxiv).”

Exactly. And to make easy for everyone see how you misrepresented the IPCC I posted their actual predictions below.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/03/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-8-years-1-month/#comment-3633095

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 9:07 am

The IPCC predicts for 70 years (TCS) and several centuries (ECS). Critics pick on ECS because the IPCC promotes ECS and gives many people the impression it refers to the next 50 to 100 years.

You insult me in most responses to my comments, and you want ME to apologize to YOU? Don’t make me laugh.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 5, 2022 3:57 am

Don’t whine. If Mr Greene will get his kindergarten mistress to read him the head posting, he will see that I cited IPCC (1990, p. xxiv), where it is explicitly stated that the predicted midrange warming from 1850-2030 is 1.8 C. Of that warming, 0.45 C had already occurred, leaving 1.35 C, or 0.34 C/decade, as the medium-term prediction.

If Mr Greene also gets his kindergarten mistress to read him the introductory predictions in IPCC (1990), he will also see a prediction of 0.3 C/decade over the period 1990-2100. These are both transient-sensitivity predictions, not equilibrium-sensitivity predictions. And it is these transient values that I used in the head posting.

That is why Mr Greene owes me an apology. But, like most climate Communists, he is not of the apologizing kind. The Party Line is all, and the mere objective truth irrelevant.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 5, 2022 1:24 pm

CMoB said: “I cited IPCC (1990, p. xxiv)”

Why not cite it correctly and fully?

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 4, 2022 4:13 am

Indeed it is a cherry-pick.

Staring with Monckton’s own cherry-pick and seeing how much the trend changes going back another 2 or 4 years. But I also added the confidence interval which should demonstrate how little confidence there is in any of these short term trends.

Note though, that for the 10 and 12 year periods I didn’t look for the start month that would give the fastest warming trend, or look for the start month that would give the longest period that has been warming at more than a certain rate. Also note, I specifically said they didn’t mean much

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 5:37 am

Monckton is *not* cherry-picking. He is analyzing current data.

Linear regression does *not* work well with cyclical data. That is why the trends you quote don’t mean much. Linear regression of a sine wave is useless.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 4, 2022 1:40 pm

Monckton is *not* cherry-picking. He is analyzing current data.

He’s the one who called it a cherry-pick. If you are going to claim that 8 years and 1 month isn’t cherry picking but 10 years and 1 month is, you will need to tell me what you understand by cherry-pick. Monckton choses to talk about 8 years and 1 month because he knows it is the longest period with a zero trend, I just added 2 and 4 years to his chosen starting date. I could have easily looked for longer periods or periods with faster warming rates.

Linear regression does *not* work well with cyclical data.

Then why don;t you criticize Monckton for using linear regression? Why don;t you show your evidence that the trend is cyclical?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
November 4, 2022 4:04 pm

This has been explained to you over and over again. Backtracking from a dead deer to find where it was shot is *NOT* cherry-picking the location where the deer was shot. It is *FINDING* the location. You don’t pick the location ahead of time, you *find* it as a result of the process.

Monckton is merely analyzing the data he is given.

My evidence of cyclical processes? See the attached graph. Can’t get more cyclical.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 4, 2022 4:05 pm

I swear I attached the graph. Don’t know what happened.

us_t_max.png
Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 4, 2022 5:00 pm

The US is not the globe, your graph stops in 2019, and you give no indication of how you are calculating the maximum temperature from all stations.

NOAA’s graph looks a bit different.

Screenshot 2022-11-04 at 23-57-19 National Time Series Climate at a Glance National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).png
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman <