The New Pause Feels the Influence Of The Coming El Niño

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The gentle but prolonged la Niña over the past four or five years has given us a good run, but now it is giving way to what some predict will be another humdinger of an el Niño. The uptick in the UAH global lower-troposphere anomalies from the previous 0.18 K to the current 0.37 K is enough to shorten the New Pause by 1 month from 8 years 11 months to 8 years 10 months:

For context, here is the entire dataset from December 1978 to May 2023:

IPCC (1990), in the business-as-usual Scenario A in its First Assessment Report, confidently predicted 0.3 [0.2, 0.5] K decade–1 global warming from 1990-2090. Scenarios B, C and D all predicted less warming, but they also all predicted fewer sins of emission than Scenario A. Scenario B, for instance, predicted that annual emissions would not increase from 1990-2025, when in fact they have increased by more than 50% since 1990. Scenario A, then, is the scenario on which we must judge IPCC’s predictions and find them grossly excessive. For the warming rate since 1990 has been only 0.137 K decade–1, showing IPCC’s original range of predictions to be 220% [150%, 370%] of mere observed reality.

Here is the UAH temperature record since 1990:

The Realitometer continues to show the scale of the excess of prediction over sober reality:

Next, the revealing graph below, sent to me by a correspondent, shows that it is chiefly the Western nations that are shutting down industry after industry as the climate Communists dream up ever more implausible pseudo-environmental excuses for destroying yet more sectors of the once-free world’s economies.

The roast beef of old England is now under sustained and malevolent attack by the Communist-led environmental front groups to which the present nominally “Conservative” government is in thrall, on the ground that cow-farts are an existential threat to The Planet. It would in fact be a disaster if meat were banned, since a diet rich in saturated fat is beneficial to everyone. Eating meat with the fat on it does not make you fat. It is eating the high-carb diet relentlessly promoted by the vegans that makes them fat and gives them type 2 diabetes.

Here, then, is the graph of various countries’ pledges to destroy their economies:

It is largely the East that continues to expand its combustion of coal, oil and gas, not least so that it can accommodate growing number of industrial sectors either banned outright in the West in name of Nut Zero or priced out by savage electricity costs.

The United Kingdom now has just about the highest unit electricity prices in the world – approximately eight times those in India and China. No surprise, then, that foreign direct investment in Britain, which in Margaret Thatcher’s time exceeded all foreign investment into the entire European tyranny-by-clerk, has collapsed.

The United States has largely achieved its “climate goals” by replacing coal-fired power with fracked gas, which emits half as much CO2 as coal but costs about twice as much.

Bloomberg, the sponsor of the graph, is sullenly dedicated to the official climate-change narrative. Its graph reveals that its staff no longer possess either the scientific competence or the political independence to approach questions such as the climate issue dispassionately.

The graph misleadingly suggests that if everyone toes the Communist Party Line and commits economic hara-kiri as the United Kingdom and at least two of its dominions are doing, the world will only warm by 1.5 degrees or less, but that if everyone follows Communist-led India and China there will be at least 2.5 degrees’ anthropogenic warming.

But one can show on the back of an envelope that even if the whole world attained nut zero and the dark, satanic mills fell silent forever the global warming prevented by 2050 would be less than one-tenth of a degree. It’s not rocket science, but it’s beyond the clueless fanatics at the once trustworthy but now laughable Bloomberg.

If even global nut zero would reduce global temperature by less than 0.1 C by 2050, then it is implausible to suggest, as the Bloombourgeois do, that the difference between some nations complying and others not complying with nut zero will be as large as 1 C. It won’t.

The Bloomburglars have also failed to make allowance for the fact that most of the Western nations that have cut their emissions have done so by switching from coal to gas, a transition that is all but complete. Now that that low-hanging fruit has been picked and eaten, not much more progress will be made, not least because adding wind and solar power to a grid once their installed nameplate capacity – the output of these unreliables in ideal weather – has surpassed total mean hourly demand on that grid will greatly increase the cost of electricity but will not reduce CO2 emissions one iota:

Finally, an eminent professor whom I dare not name, for academic freedom in the Komsomol indoctrination centres that were once our ancient universities is no more and he would be savagely punished if I were to name him, has kindly sent me the following evaluation of the scope for wind power in the United Kingdom.

He describes it as “an interesting calculation that an intelligent child could make”:

Bottom line: If we carpeted the entire land and sea area of the United Kingdom with windmills – 14th-century tech to fail to solve a 21st-century non-problem expensively – they would in theory meet our entire electricity demand. Except that they wouldn’t. Three-quarters of the time they would be producing little or no electricity. The other one-quarter of the time they would be producing four times as much electricity as Britain needs. The waste would be prodigious. Of course, one could carpet the land area in between the windmills with static batteries, but then the cost of UK electricity, already among the highest in the world, would be ten times what it already is.

Ludicrously, down here in Somerset, the Government is about to bribe Tata Steel with half a billion sterling of our money so that they can build a giant battery factory for electric buggies. Reason for the bribe: Tata Steel says it can’t afford to come to the UK without subsidies to pay the difference between the nut-zero-driven electricity cost here and just about everywhere else. And that is before taking account of the fact that even global nut zero by 2050 (which won’t happen anyway because China, Russia, India and Pakistan are building ever more coal-fired power stations) would reduce global temperature by just 0.1 degree, at a cost of at least $1 quadrillion.

The Professor concludes that even 10% coverage by bird-blending, bee-bashing, bat-blatting windmills would be intolerable. He writes:

“The only solution is 100% nuclear. It is so blatantly obvious that I cannot believe that a halfway intelligent person cannot understand it. I also cannot understand why anyone would think that nuclear energy is dangerous when the evidence says the opposite.

“The problem is that we are in a post-truth society when the scientific method is dying and government and science are melding into a fluid rolling wave of corrupt stupidity. There is so much money being made by the renewable industries from grotesque subsidies, and from carbon trading credits by some members of the World Economic Forum, that we are fighting an uphill battle.

“There are signs that the Government are beginning to recognise the absurdity of net zero, but nobody from the pseudo-science climate alarmists to the politicians want to lose face by publicly admitting that the whole climate scam is a house of cards.”

Amen to all that.

4.8 31 votes
Article Rating
173 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob Weber
June 3, 2023 6:10 am

The new pause is feeling the solar cycle influence, which is generating the next El Niño. High solar activity is causing the recent ocean warming. btw, it is not an El Niño yet.

Scissor
Reply to  Bob Weber
June 3, 2023 8:03 am

It’s amazing that propaganda generates so much fear over a 1 to 2 C rise of temps off the depths of the Little Ice Age.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Scissor
June 3, 2023 12:33 pm

Yes, and it’s also amazing the amount of fear and hatred generated by telling the truth about the sun’s control of the climate. Speaking of the 1 to 2°C rise since the LIA…

comment image

Scissor, I want you and everyone else to be prepared now for more sun-climate effects.

I predicted in my last year’s AGU and Sun-Climate presentations that the 1.5°C ‘limit’ will be breached by about 2027 due to the effect of high SC25 irradiance on the ocean.

It would behoove the WUWT audience to recognize that particular prediction and that it was made a year before the recent media propaganda assault over this year’s ocean warming that ‘scientists’ said they didn’t understand, and weren’t expecting.

The pause ends because of high TSI ocean warming that will produce an El Niño too.

This will inevitably lead to another step-up in global SST, furthering ‘global warming’.

I predicted this warm-up as far back as 2018 in my AGU poster on the effect of irradiance extremes that this solar warming phase would occur after the solar minimum, after the solar cooling period I had also predicted that actually happened, where ‘scientists were surprised’ again at the slight cooling and ice increase.

Now that we know SC25 is stronger than SC24, the course is set for more warming:

comment image

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bob Weber
June 3, 2023 9:06 am

In response to Mr Weber, though solar activity is currently high, the long-run correlation between solar activity cycles and el Nino/la Nina cycles is poor. It is possible that subocean volcanism moderated by lunar motion and by the motion of the Sun around the gravitational barycenter of the solar system is one reason for the oscillation.

And the head posting does not say the next el Nino is here. It says the New Pause is feeling the influence of its approach.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 3, 2023 11:52 am

“…long-run correlation between solar activity cycles and el Nino/la Nina cycles is poor”

There’s been progress in understanding this relationship: the previous nine solar cycles produced the following average tropical responses, both a ~1°C tropical step-up and subsequent step-down in the ENSO region following solar cycle activity highs/lows.

comment image

The odds of that relationship occurring without solar activity are 1.6(10)^19 to one!

Now we are in the middle of the tenth consecutive such step-up in a row, making the odds even higher yet that these events are impossible without solar activity.

“It is possible that subocean volcanism moderated by lunar motion and by the motion of the Sun around the gravitational barycenter of the solar system is one reason for the oscillation.”

Now you’ve just shown me you only know how to speculate; got any evidence?

Don’t you know that you’ve just violated the WUWT rules by bringing up barycentrism?

The saddest thing about you, the guy pushing ‘the pauses’, is you have absolutely zero idea that they came about because of low solar activity during the minima of the last two solar cycles.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bob Weber
June 3, 2023 7:55 pm

Now you’ve just shown me you only know how to speculate; got any evidence?

For starters, the Pacific Ring of Fire is the longest continuous line of volcanoes on Earth. Every plate tectonic spreading center fosters the episodic injection of magma, approximately in the center of both major oceans. There are also fields of Black Smokers at great depth, pumping hot water out.

Additionally, there are seamounts, particularly in the Pacific, that have a nasty habit of jumping into the path of oncoming nuclear submarines. Thus, there is some interest in mapping the hiding location of these sea mounts. A recent news article announced the discovery of more than 19,000 previously unknown sea mounts, almost doubling the known number.

https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/rivers-oceans/mind-boggling-array-of-19000-undersea-volcanoes-discovered-with-high-resolution-radar-satellites

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/satellite-data-unknown-oceans-sea-mountains

Note particularly the known volcanoes around Indonesia, where the warm water that defines El Niño originate:

comment image

Bob Weber
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 4, 2023 5:41 am

Clyde, that’s still just speculation added onto circumstantial evidence.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 3, 2023 7:30 pm

Why is the warm water pool east of Indonesia at depths of 100-300 meters instead of at the surface? Might it be that the water is being heated at depth by volcanoes or hydrothermal activity? Volcanic activity is notoriously episodic and unpredictable, which would explain the quasi-periodic oscillation of the ENSO phase, which doesn’t always arrive when expected.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 4, 2023 4:25 am

“Why is the warm water pool east of Indonesia at depths of 100-300 meters instead of at the surface?”

Good question.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 4, 2023 7:55 am

Might it be that the water is being heated at depth by volcanoes or hydrothermal activity?

That’s obviously not the cause. The ocean is warmed by the Sun and cooled by the atmosphere. The Sun warms the photic layer, the atmosphere cools the surface. The subsurface heat cannot exit the ocean until it reaches the surface. 99.99% of the energy that powers the climate system comes from the Sun. The Earth’s interior (and all other causes) contribution is negligible.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Javier Vinós
June 4, 2023 8:13 pm

Photic zone, surface layer of the ocean that receives sunlight. The uppermost 80 m (260 feet) or more of the ocean, which is sufficiently illuminated to permit photosynthesis by phytoplankton and plants, is called the euphotic zone. Sunlight insufficient for photo-synthesis illuminates the disphotic zone, which extends from the base of the euphotic zone to about 200 m.

https://www.britannica.com/science/photic-zone

The Earth’s interior (and all other causes) contribution is negligible.

That has been the prevailing paradigm (based on scant measurements) for some time. I’m questioning that assumption based on new information.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Javier Vinós
June 4, 2023 8:29 pm

See the description of the “Oceanic Mixed Layer:”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_layer

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 4, 2023 3:39 am

Lord Monckton,

though solar activity is currently high, the long-run correlation between solar activity cycles and el Nino/la Nina cycles is poor.

The changing solar activity effect on climate does not work how you think it should.

It works by altering the energetics of the polar regions in winter, the most unique places on the entire planet in terms of radiating properties.

comment image

You should look for this effect in Arctic warming or the frequency of cold winters in the northern latitudes. Arctic warming took place in the 1920s and since 1997, the two periods with the lowest solar activity in 100 years. The effect on global surface temperatures is indirect. When low solar activity reduces the energy content of the climate system the planet cools, but other factors determine when and how, as temperature is multifactorial.

The reason for your pause and the 1998-2014 pause is the decrease in solar activity. The Pause is linked to Arctic warming. This is absolutely certain, as the AMO hasn’t yet turned over. When it does we will see more effects.

The effect on ENSO is through altering the strength of the ascending branch of the Brewer-Dobson circulation, which affects tropical convection and sea surface heat flux. It, therefore, has more effect on determining when a La Niña or a neutral year should take place.

comment image

La Niña tends to occur during the ascending phase of the solar cycle and when solar activity is low. Neutral years tend to show the opposite pattern. El Niño is an overdrive response of the ENSO heat pump when too much heat accumulates in the equatorial Pacific subsurface.

The climate is complex after all. For a more nuanced look at the evidence check my book.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Javier Vinós
June 4, 2023 4:35 am

“Arctic warming took place in the 1920s and since 1997, the two periods with the lowest solar activity in 100 years.”

The 1930’s was a very warm decade, equivalent to the temperaures of today (1998/2016), so it looks like high global temperatures are connected to arctic warming. I’m assuming the 10-year period from 1920 to 1930 is similar in solar activity.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 4, 2023 5:24 am

Solar activity in 1900-1935 (cycles 14-16) was comparable to solar activity since 2005. At around 1935 Arctic warming decreased and global warming, which was taking place since the 1910s, increased.

It is a heat transport-mediated mechanism, not a surface temperature mechanism.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Javier Vinós
June 4, 2023 5:45 am

The Pause is not linked to the Arctic; you still don’t recognize your error Javier.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Bob Weber
June 4, 2023 6:37 am

What would you know? You don’t read.

comment image

Kretschmer, M., Coumou, D., Agel, L., Barlow, M., Tziperman, E. and Cohen, J., 2018. More-persistent weak stratospheric polar vortex states linked to cold extremesBulletin of the American Meteorological Society99(1), pp.49-60.

I guess even you can see where the heat went for the Pause to occur. Arctic warming and Pause go hand in hand.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Javier Vinós
June 4, 2023 7:12 am

“What would you know? You don’t read.”

Javier, you are a certifiable idiot/savant, light on the savant side.

So, everything I ‘need to know’ I ‘must read’ from someone else, like you do, because you can’t figure your way of a wet paper bag without leaning on all kinds of other peoples’ work, including mine.

You still haven’t owned up to plagiarizing my 1935-2004 modern maximum and then adding a year, then denying you did that.

You’re an effing joke, a real-life snake oil salesman.

“I guess even you can see where the heat went for the Pause to occur. Arctic warming and Pause go hand in hand.”

No, what I can “see” is that you’re an idiot, but I repeat myself.

It absolutely does not matter to the ‘Pause’ when Arctic warming occurs, because the climate changing mechanism originates in the tropics where sunlight is absorbed and converted to sensible heat, not at the pole where some of the heat travels to in time.

comment image

All you have is handwaving and your cult of personality status.

Javier Vinós
Reply to  Bob Weber
June 4, 2023 7:33 am

You own your personality problems. I refuse to get into that. Your inability to learn from other people only has one consequence. Your complete loss of the precious time we all have been given. I won’t waste mine with you.

donklipstein
Reply to  Bob Weber
June 5, 2023 9:11 am

The solar cycle doesn’t cause El Ninos. The El Nino of 1997-1998 was a big one and it happened during a solar minimum.

Ben Vorlich
June 3, 2023 6:22 am

The total installed “renewables” in the UK is
Onshore Wind 14 GW
Offshore Wind 14 GW
Solar 13.3 GW
Total ~41GW
Maximum combined output 3 June 2022 to 3 June 2023 20.4GW minimum <1GW

Says it all

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
June 3, 2023 8:03 am

Yes obviously the thing to do is to build ten times the bird shredders. 10x <1GW is < 10GW, hmmmm! Maybe make that 50x? How much money do you have in your wallet?

n.n
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 3, 2023 8:09 am

Spread the Green blight over land and sea and still enjoy progressive capital redistribution, ecological hazards, and unreliable energy.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 3, 2023 9:34 am

“How much money do you have in your wallet?”

Or, how fast can you crank up the $$$ printing presses!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 4, 2023 2:29 am

Well actually you raise an interesting point. Can you simply crank up the printing presses?

(That’s so old school btw, we doan got to have no printing presses, we doan need no steeenkin printing presses – ref https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ).

It’s all electronic now. The paper in your pocket becomes worthless with the click of a few buttons on the screen. That’s how all the value is stolen from your wallet and everybody’s bank account. Not by printing paper dollars.

So, can they just crank up the printing presses to build $100 trillion worth of bird shredders and batteries composed of unobtanium?

No, they cannot. They can steal all the value from the economy perhaps, but they can’t steal more than we all have collectively. They also can’t buy batteries made of materials that don’t exist.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 4, 2023 5:20 am

I guess you didn’t realize I wasn’t serious.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 4, 2023 4:50 pm

No, I understood that you were being sarcastic but I just wanted to comment on the nature of money.

Fiat currency can be unilaterally debased in order to steal value away from those who are left holding worthless paper. The popular misperception is that government can print up money which many people conflate with value. The true value of money comes from the value of goods and services in the economy.

At the margin printing an extra dollar seems to produce a dollar of value out of thin air. Actually it steals an infinitesimal amount of value from every other dollar in the money supply and adjusts down the true value or buying power of every dollar, including the one just created.

My treatment of this topic is not quite rigorous because the extra dollar isn’t just created from thin air as by a counterfeiter. In theory it is backed by a bond, a government debt. Notionally the total value of the money supply is increased to maintain the value of a dollar stable by adding in the promise that someone will pay a tax at some future date to pay off the new bond.

That fiction can only be stretched so far. If the goods and services don’t increase in line with the number of dollars in the money supply (a bigger and bigger portion of the money supply represents intangible promises to pay), too many dollars chase too few goods leading to price inflation.

It helps to make the argumentum ad absurdum here. Legally the government could issue a 100 quintillion dollar million-year bond with zero percent interest and sell it to the Fed.

Essentially all of the money supply would then be “owned” by the government and all of the money previously held by individuals and organizations would be so debased as to be essentially worthless. The government can then spend its money however it chooses, to benefit its constituents and cronies. That is in fact a theft but would be fully legal.

Ultimately however the total value of those 100 quintillion dollars would still just be the total value of goods and services in the economy. The government can’t create value through borrowing, they can only steal pre-existing wealth.

So my essential point is that the government can’t borrow to build a Green New Deal costing $100 trillion because that is more than the total value in the economy. Even if through police power they could coerce everyone to give up everything of value, they must reach the end of OPM (other people’s money).

Of course there is an earlier limit than reaching the total value of the economy, and that is at the point where more voters are hurt than that benefit from the government theft scheme. Of course assuming perfect information flow and continued democratic elections that are not subverted and are honored.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 5, 2023 3:55 am

Ultimately however the total value of those 100 quintillion dollars would still just be the total value of goods and services in the economy.”

You’ll never convince the Marxists the education system is turning out today. In their view goods and services have no intrinsic value. If everything is shared equally then the value of everything is meaningless. If everyone has the same free house or the same free car then the house and the car has no value. Even the concept of money becomes meaningless. The only reason for government at all is to facilitate the distribution of all the free stuff to everyone.

Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that this philosophy will never work. It just drives everything to the lowest common denominator. Everyone gets the same 2-dr black sedan with the same four cylinder engine. Everyone gets the same moldy loaf of bread (or no bread at all). Everyone gets the same level of misery!

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
June 3, 2023 9:14 am

… and total UK electricity demand, which has plummeted in the last 20 years as nut-zero policies have increased electricity prices many times over, is only 36 GWh/h. So the installed nameplate capacity of wind and solar, at 42 GWh/h, already exceeds mean hourly demand by about one-sixth.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 3, 2023 2:37 pm

Totting up the cost of the energy it took to mine, refine and process the materials, then manufacture, transport, assemble, service and maintain said boondoggles would be an interesting exercise. I somehow doubt that it would be less than if we had produced power with conventional thermal generation.

strativarius
June 3, 2023 6:31 am

The result isn’t really the point, is it? We know who will be alright, Jack.

What really matters is the quantity of virtue that was signalled. You could measure that in terms of the rate of acceleration into the economic abyss.

bdgwx
June 3, 2023 6:39 am

The 4 month lagged ONI corresponding to 2023/05 is -0.7 so UAH TLT is still under the influence of La Nina. This will begin to change for the 2023/06 update which has a 4 month lagged ONI of -0.4.

An interesting stat…0.37 C on the 2023/05 update is the highest monthly anomaly under a La Nina influence (4 month lagged ONI of <= -0.5).

Anyway, if ENSO follows the IRI ensemble forecast achieving an ONI of +1.1 in August and assuming no confounding factors then we might expect 2023 to end with a length of 107 months. 108 and 109 month lengths are possible as well with even a modest reduction in the ENSO expectation. I certainly wouldn’t be discounting the possibility that the pause has ended just yet.

The nice thing about the ups and downs though is that it allows us to start a new pause almost immediately after the previous one ends so we should be able to receive nearly continuous updates on a pause (whichever one it may be) even if the planet continues to warm.

karlomonte
Reply to  bdgwx
June 3, 2023 6:41 am

zzzzzzzzzz……

Scissor
Reply to  karlomonte
June 3, 2023 8:04 am

…………bs. (Finished it.)

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Scissor
June 3, 2023 9:16 am

KarloMonte and Scissor are right: bdgwx is boring and, as usual, off the point. The truth is that the rate of global warming is well below half of what IPCC predicted back in 1990 when the scare got going.

bnice2000
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 3, 2023 2:09 pm

They KNOW they have to rely on El Nino for warming..

That means they KNOW that it is not CO2.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bnice2000
June 3, 2023 3:21 pm

Infra-red from CO2 does little to warm the ocean. Neither does conduction/convection from a warming atmosphere. Heat in the atmosphere rises, it doesn’t fall into the ocean.

El Nino is not a CO2 phenomenon. CO2 is *not* the major thermostat control for Earth. It’s barely a factor at all. It’s a canard like “white supremacy is the largest domestic terrorism threat in the US”. It’s only useful in controlling the masses through what IBM used to call “FUD”, fear/uncertainty/doubt, their main control technique for keeping customers tied to IBM.

Rick Wedel
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 3, 2023 3:44 pm

I’ve been wondering about how atmospheric heat and possibly infrared radiation could heat the ocean, which is necessary to support the idea that atmospheric heat from man made CO2 is being trapped in the deep ocean. Is there a good source explaining the physics of this that you could recommend? Thanks.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Rick Wedel
June 5, 2023 3:26 pm

You won’t find a book explaining the physics because the heat being trapped in the deep ocean isn’t reality.

Just like air, warmer water rises. Even if shortwave radiation from the sun were to warm the upper part of the ocean how would it get transported into the deep ocean? There is no Enterprise in close earth orbit using a transporter to accomplish this. Warm water *can* be transported via the “rivers” in the ocean but it isn’t obvious how this can “push” the heat deeper let alone trap it there.

Richard M
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 5, 2023 5:31 am

Infra-red from CO2 does little to warm the ocean.

Actually, the IR from CO2 is so weak it is absorbed right at the surface. This will enhance evaporative cooling.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard M
June 5, 2023 3:30 pm

Yep. That’s the whole point. If the “globe” is warming then, since the oceans make up so much of the mass of the earth, the oceans should be warming as well. What’s the mechanism for that? It can’t be CO2 back radiation.

All CO2 does is slow down radiative heat loss. But that just means more convective and conductive cooling because of higher nighttime gradients between the surface and space.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 3, 2023 3:24 pm

Here is the IPCC temperature prediction back in 1990. They’re 30 year prediction isn’t perfect, but it looks pretty good. How does it compare to your 7.5 year prediction?

comment image

Rich Davis
Reply to  bdgwx
June 3, 2023 5:01 pm

Come on now bdgwx, you know that scenario B doesn’t match actual emissions. Try to be honest.

More importantly, 2, 3, 4, even 5 degrees warmer is not an actual problem let alone the ridiculously trivial 1.5 degrees. Even if we alone are driving it. Which of course can’t be the case because all-time record emissions of the past decade have resulted in very little change in temperature.

If you want to stop CO2 emissions there’s really only one practical way—wipe out humanity, or at least most of us. 7/8ths of the world is not in a suicidal mood, so you’ll have to murder them to impose your will. Nuke China and India, let Africa starve and you’ll have a shot at it.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 3, 2023 6:22 pm

None of the scenarios match actual emissions. Anyway, I was expecting Monckton to use scenario A so I invite you to do the same. Adjudicate who made the better prediction assuming scenario A and report back once you’ve made your decision.

Rich Davis
Reply to  bdgwx
June 4, 2023 1:54 am

First of all, the IPCC predictions/projections for various scenarios imply a causal relationship expressed as a change in temperature resulting from a change in CO2 concentration.

The relationship that the IPCC predicted is way too sensitive to concentration.

If we were honestly discussing a scientific question, honest scientists would honestly admit that the hypothesis needs adjustment to reduce sensitivity to concentration. And yet the adjustment actually made was to INCREASE the central estimate of sensitivity.

Secondly, did I miss your link to where CMB predicted -0.5K? It’s not a man-on-the-street well-known fact. Taking it on faith that he made such a prediction, it would be interesting to have him assess where he went wrong and what the failed prediction informs us.

Evaluating which wildly inaccurate prediction was worse, as you propose to be the most relevant concern, is in my view a colossal waste of time.

I am however pleased that you no longer dispute that a 5K temperature rise would be beneficial and that reaching net zero implies genocide. Making progress with you.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 4, 2023 5:36 am

First of all, the IPCC predictions/projections for various scenarios imply a causal relationship expressed as a change in temperature resulting from a change in CO2 concentration.

Correct. Here are the concentration inputs that went into those temperature predictions/projections.

comment image

Secondly, did I miss your link to where CMB predicted -0.5K?

Maybe. Here it is again.

Evaluating which wildly inaccurate prediction was worse, as you propose to be the most relevant concern, is in my view a colossal waste of time.

I don’t know that it is the most relevant concern. But Monckton is claiming at least in this iteration that warming is “well below half of what IPCC predicted back in 1990” so I thought a fact check of that claim would be one way I could contribute to the discussion. And since has also indicted the IPCC prediction and modeling as “useless” I thought it might be helpful to understand what criteria is used to assess whether a prediction is “useless” or not by comparing and contrasting what he predicted. Either way you have no obligation to participate in this discussion.

I am however pleased that you no longer dispute that a 5K temperature rise would be beneficial and that reaching net zero implies genocide. Making progress with you.

I think you have me confused with someone else here. I’ve not discussed whether 5 K of warming would be beneficial. And as a general rule I don’t participate in those discussions because I don’t think I have enough knowledge on the topic to contribute in a meaningful way.

Rich Davis
Reply to  bdgwx
June 4, 2023 7:43 am

According to that link it was a friend with a track record of getting things right who told him we were in for half a degree of cooling based on a solar forcing hypothesis. And the friend has less of a track record getting things right apparently.

Remember the saying: two wrongs don’t make a right.

All the whataboutism you want to throw up doesn’t change the fact that the models run too hot.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 4, 2023 11:23 am

All the whataboutism you want to throw up doesn’t change the fact that the models run too hot.

By about 0.1 C over 30 years and that’s assuming scenario A. If scenario B better matches atmospheric concentrations of GHGs then the IPCC model ran too cold.

Yet Monckton describes this as “wrong”, “spectacularly awful”, “not fit for the purpose”, etc. He also says modelers should be paid in accordance to the accuracy of their predictions. The IPCC 30 year prediction for the temperature change from 2013 to 2020 would be +0.18 C. Monckton predicted -0.5 C. Reality…+0.25 C. The IPCC was off by 0.07 C. Monckton was off by 0.75 C. So if the “modelers” are to be defunded for this “digital masturbation” then what shall the consequence for Monckton and his friends?

Rich Davis
Reply to  bdgwx
June 4, 2023 5:30 pm

What planet are you on bdgwx? Almost all models except those wascally Wussians’ model are far above observations.

It takes a certain kind of disassociation from reality to utter the words “If scenario B better matches atmospheric concentrations of GHGs then the IPCC model ran too cold.”

Da tovarishch I have disseminated my denier disinformatsiya will you be remitting payment in renminbi to my Shanghai account as usual?

Oops ignore that last irrelevant sentence!

Oh sorry I have to go, Exxon Mobil is on the other line.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 4, 2023 5:57 pm

If not scenario B then what scenario do you think is a better match to 413 ppm of CO2, 1900 ppb of CH4, and 225 ppt of CFC11?

old cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
June 4, 2023 8:30 pm

According to your charts, C 🙂

bdgwx
Reply to  old cocky
June 5, 2023 8:07 am

The IPCC expectation is for CO2, CH4, and CFC11 to account for roughly 70%, 15%, and 15% of the forcing respectively. Using those figures we can estimate the scenarios quantitatively where A is set to 1.0 and B, C, and D are the forcings relative to A. O is the observation.

A = 0.70*1.00 + 0.15*1.00 + 0.15*1.00 = 1.00
B = 0.70*0.50 + 0.15*0.40 + 0.15*1.00 = 0.56
C = 0.70*0.50 + 0.15*0.20 + 0.15*0.60 = 0.47
D = 0.70*0.50 + 0.15*0.10 + 0.15*0.60 = 0.46

O = 0.70*0.70 + 0.15*0.20 + 0.15*-0.20 = 0.49

So O is a little above C according to my very rough pixel scraping analysis.

old cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
June 5, 2023 2:57 pm

We all know CMoB’s pause is trolling with statistics to show how silly trolling with statistics based on a noisy time series is.

Anyway, are the figures above for the full 1984 – 2023 range, or the 2013 – 2020?

It would be interesting to run a similar exercise with the various RCP concentration pathways, and the newer SSPs

bdgwx
Reply to  old cocky
June 5, 2023 7:33 pm

The numbers are from a rough pixel scaping of IPCC figure 5 above from 1990 to 2020.

There are a lot of caveats here though. I believe the IPCC scenarios include aerosols as well but there is limited information on how the scenarios are treating them. And I’m not sure the 70/15/15 mix for CO2/CH4/CFC11 forcing is correct (I think it is close though). The point…there are reasons to be skeptical of my pixel scrape estimate that reality was closest to C. My hunch is that B is truly closer though there’s not much difference in the temperature predictions between B, C, and D through 2020 so it’s probably moot for now.

old cocky
Reply to  bdgwx
June 5, 2023 8:35 pm

a rough pixel scaping of IPCC figure 5 above from 1990 to 2020.

1984 would have been quite apt 🙂

I’m not sure the 70/15/15 mix for CO2/CH4/CFC11 forcing is correct

Whoever came up with the CFC11 figures must have been usinf stuff tht Timothy Leary could only dream of on his wildest trips.

There are various figures bandied about for the GHP of CH$, including 42, which seems apt.
Using some mental mathtur arithmetic, CH4 was around 1.5 ppm in 1990, rising to about 2.4 ppm in 2020 (A), so a 60% increase.
In 1990, the CO2 equivalent would be 63 ppm CO2. In 2020, it would be 101 ppm. so a rise of 38ppm CO2 equivalent.
That looks way high, so maybe the 42 is a dyslexic 24 🙁
In that case, 1990 was 36 ppm, 2020 would be 58, for a rise of 22 ppm.

CO2 was 350 ppm in 1990, rising to 425(?) in 2020, a rise of 75 ppm.
That gives CH4 somewhere between 30% and 50% CO2 equivalent, both of which are higher than the 21% of 15/70.

In any case, the Scenario A CH4 rise could never occur from agriculture, only from massive releases from oil/gas and coal seams, or maybe melting permafrost. Even then, A required smoking some really good heads, and B or C were far more realistic.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
June 3, 2023 6:57 am

assuming no confounding factors

this is how correlationalists convince themselves they are “doing science”.

bdgwx
Reply to  JCM
June 3, 2023 7:31 am

A VEI 6 eruption would be an example of a confounding factor.

JCM
Reply to  bdgwx
June 3, 2023 7:45 am

meanwhile the covariates continue to co-vary. a winning formula.

bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
June 3, 2023 7:32 am

Another interesting stat…0.41 C in 2020/09 is the highest monthly anomaly with a corresponding ONI of <= 0.0. I calculate only a 22% chance that June or July with corresponding ONIs of -0.4 and -0.2 respectively will come in higher than 0.41 C. I’m expecting the corresponding ONI for August to be > 0.

Richard M
Reply to  bdgwx
June 5, 2023 5:28 am

The reduction in Antarctic sea ice is still missing from your analysis. Of course, Arctic sea ice also has an influence but it’s been pretty constant for the last 15 years. However, not including it means you will put much emphasis on other factors.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard M
June 5, 2023 7:32 am

I did get a chance to play around with sea ice area this morning. When I include global sea ice area anomalies I do get an ever so slight RMSD reduction from the ML model. This bumps up the expectation of monthly UAH TLT anomalies by about 0.03 C in 2023. I think a physical explanation could be that less sea ice area allows more heat to transfer into the atmosphere.

karlomonte
June 3, 2023 6:40 am

The nut zero chart says it all, none of the elements of this crusade will accomplish anything.

ResourceGuy
June 3, 2023 6:51 am

The corporate liturgical calendar of virtue signaling is now well established. Know your months.

Rich Davis
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 3, 2023 8:06 am

Current month requires liturgical colors of rainbow

Bellman
June 3, 2023 7:14 am

“The New Pause Feels the Influence Of The Coming El Niño”

Unless the pause is psychic, wouldn’t a more honest headline be – the new pause gets slightly shorter as the influence of the lengthy La Niña wanes?

An even more honest headline would point out the pause is only the length it is because of the influence of the big El Niño in 2016.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
June 3, 2023 9:17 am

Don’t whine.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 3, 2023 8:10 pm

Pedanting with bated breath.

bnice2000
Reply to  Bellman
June 3, 2023 2:00 pm

The absolute RELIANCE on El Ninos to break the pause, …

PROVES that the alarmists and the associated cultists KNOW that CO2 is not the cause of the slight , beneficial warming we have been lucky enough to have out of the LIA. !

Bellman
Reply to  bnice2000
June 3, 2023 5:44 pm

No reliance. I believe the pause is a meaningless piece of statistical nonsense, that only convinces the true believers here. I’ve no idea if a future El Niño will “break” it, but if it does it will only mean the start of a new pause. We could at this very moment be in another overlap period where the last few months will turn out to have been part of the current pause, and part of the next new pause.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bellman
June 4, 2023 4:53 am

“the true believers here”

That’s funny.

What we have here at WUWT are the True Doubters. We have doubts because the climate change alarmists can’t prove their claims. To this very day, they can’t prove their claims.

Bellman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 4, 2023 6:07 am

Yet, whenever I express doubts over the validity of the pause, I’m attacked for not understanding the precise tracker skills Moncjton uses to determine the exact month it started.

I’ve been doubting the pause for years, and the response from sceptics us always the same “how dare you question something that we know to be true. The science is settled”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bellman
June 4, 2023 2:44 pm

Well, “the Pause” is real, as far as it goes.

It’s not a prediction of a future trend, which is what I think you are complaining about. The Pause is about a specific period of time for which the data is already in.

Bellman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 5, 2023 5:57 am

It’s not a prediction of a future trend, which is what I think you are complaining about.

That’s not what I’m complaining about. My complaint about this and all the other pauses, is that there is no attempt to justify the claim statistically. If you are going to claim that warming paused, you have to demonstrate that there has been a statistically significant change in the trend. (Or at least you have to ask for that evidence if you are trying to be skeptical).

Monckton provides no such evidence, instead just presents the trend since a carefully selected period, with no mention of the uncertainty in that trend.

As far as I’m concerned there is no evidence this pause is real, it’s just a statistical slight of hand.

And to be clear – I am not saying I believe the pause is definitely false. It’s just that before I think it’s worth taking seriously you need to provide sufficient evidence to support it as being anything other than part of the background noise.

I would make the same point if anyone was to claim that warming had accelerated in the last 12 years. It’s easy to find trends that are more than twice as fast as the overall one, just by carefully selecting the start point. But unless you can demonstrate that the faster warming rate was significantly different than what went before, and made sure it wasn’t the result of cherry-picking the start date, it will remain at best something still waiting confirmation.

karlomonte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 4, 2023 6:35 am

Every now and again bellcurveman slips up and lets his true side show.

Bellman
Reply to  karlomonte
June 4, 2023 7:33 am

Don’t worry, Carlo. I don’t think you are a true believer in the pause. You make it clear you think the UAH data isn’t fit for purpose, and it’s impossible to tell what the trend could possibly be. So I count you as a true pause doubter.

Streetcred
Reply to  Bellman
June 3, 2023 6:31 pm

Let’s follow the “honesty” schtick, likewise the warming is only consequence of el Nino!

Bellman
Reply to  Streetcred
June 3, 2023 6:40 pm

Really? Please show your workings.

bdgwx
Reply to  Streetcred
June 4, 2023 5:53 am

Is cooling not a consequence of La Nina?

Bellman
June 3, 2023 7:27 am

“The Realitometer continues to show the scale of the excess of prediction over sober reality”

A reminder that the IPCC are actually predicting, on current projections of emissions, to rise to 2°C by the end of the century, from pre-industrial levels. They state that in 2015 global temperatures were 1.1°C above pre-industrial, so the future trend is predicted to be 1.2°C / century.

If they are correct, the UAH trend will have to decline as we move through the next 70 years.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bellman
June 3, 2023 8:07 am

4 degrees of warming would be just fine and lead to the Neo climate optimum

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Bellman
June 3, 2023 9:19 am

So it isn’t worse than we ever done thunk, then. Originally, IPCC had predicted 3 C warming over the 21st century. Now that’s down to just 1.2 C/century. So, what climate “emergency”, then? They screwed up.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 3, 2023 12:18 pm

Unless the eco-fascists get their Nut Zero Suicide Pact consummated, there won’t be any emergency in the lifetime of any person alive today.

The potential crisis far off in the future would be to run out of cost-effective fossil fuels and no longer be able to feed 11-12 billion people when that time comes. That will only be an issue if we fail to develop a cost effective energy system within the next ten generations or so.

And then there’s the next glaciation.

And ultimately CO2 levels too low for photosynthesis.

In short as long as we can still mitigate the global CO2 depletion crisis, and the climate keeps improving as it has been, it’s all good.

Bellman
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 3, 2023 5:33 pm

Yes, I made a mistake. See my comment below.

But the point you never address is that the amount of warming over the next century depends on emissions. You never actually quote any IPCC figures but just assume the ECS will translate into rate of warming per century.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bellman
June 4, 2023 4:58 am

“But the point you never address is that the amount of warming over the next century depends on emissions.”

Does it? How do you know?

Bellman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 4, 2023 6:13 am

Look at that statement in context.

We are talking about the IPCC’s projections. It’s those projections that depend on the emissions scenarios. That’s what’s being argued about. How well do observations support the projections. If everyone is wrong and CO2 has nothing to do with temperature, that’s some that could become apparent in the coming decades. But you have to compare observations with what’s actually claimed, not against some self-service fantasy.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bellman
June 4, 2023 11:15 am

The problem is that governments are setting policies based on politicized UN IPCC projections. Feeding excessive GHG speculation into CliSciFi models that admittedly run too hot is not a rational basis for fundamentally altering our society, economy and energy systems. And the UN IPCC has an anti-capitalist bias; Marxist, if you will.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bellman
June 4, 2023 2:46 pm

“We are talking about the IPCC’s projections. It’s those projections that depend on the emissions scenarios. That’s what’s being argued about.”

I see what you mean. Thanks for the correction.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
June 3, 2023 5:28 pm

A reminder that the IPCC are actually predicting, on current projections of emissions, to rise to 2°C by the end of the century, from pre-industrial levels

Sorry, the screw up was mine. I misremembered the figure completely. It’s actually 3.2°C, not 2°C.

Modelled pathways consistent with the continuation of policies implemented by the end of 2020 lead to global warming of 3.2 [2.2-3.5]°C (5–95% range) by 2100 (medium confidence) (see also Section 2.3.1).

Pathways of >4°C (≥50%) by 2100 would imply a reversal of current technology and/or mitigation policy trends (medium confidence).

That would imply 2.1°C over 2011-2020 values, so a warming rate of about 2.8°C / century. Obviously a lot faster than current UAH values, but less than the 3.9°C / century figure.

In fact the sub 2°C warming figures are for low and very low emission scenarios.

Future warming depends on future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with cumulative net CO2 dominating. The assessed best estimates and very likely ranges of warming for 2081–2100 with respect to 1850–1900 vary from 1.4°C [1.0-1.8°C] in the very low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-1.9) to 2.7°C [2.1°C–3.5°C] in the intermediate GHG emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5) and 4.4°C [3.3°C–5.7°C] in the very high GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5)

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Bellman
June 4, 2023 1:02 am

Interchangeable with the IPCC’s favourite term, medium confidence:

maybe, maybe not.
50/50 chance.
no idea.
who knows?
we haven’t got a clue.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
June 4, 2023 5:02 am

Yeah, they’re guessing. No evidence.

We spend Trillions of dollars on no evidence.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bellman
June 5, 2023 4:11 am

If they are correct, the UAH trend will have to decline as we move through the next 70 years.

Doesn’t that make sense according to your own theory?

We see a current trend of 1.3K/century. CO2 emissions are growing roughly linearly but the GH effect is logarithmic—there are diminishing returns as more and more CO2 enters the atmosphere. Thus the temperature rise per time must slow down. After all, the defined dogma is that nearly all of the temperature change in recent decades is caused by the GHE.

This is why your high priests defined the dogma that 1.5 degrees spells doomsday at the Council of Paris. It’s unlikely to reach 2 degrees and they still urgently need to implement communism.

1.5 or 2 degrees will be wholly beneficial. Neither one is a legitimate justification for destroying the lives of billions of people. If the whole world climate was warmer and wetter we would certainly survive and almost certainly thrive.

P.S.
I see that you realized your heresy of accidentally speaking the truth below. Doesn’t change my comment though

Bellman
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 5, 2023 5:28 am

Doesn’t that make sense according to your own theory?

I can’t claim credit for the theory.

And to be clear I made a mistake about the IPCC projections. Their projections under current policies is still for around 2°C additional warming by the end of the century, so would still require the UAH rate to increase.

CO2 emissions are growing roughly linearly but the GH effect is logarithmic—there are diminishing returns as more and more CO2 enters the atmosphere.

Linearly increasing emissions do not mean that CO2 levels increase linearly. At a naive approximation, increasing emissions means CO2 levels increase faster than linear, constant emissions would result in a linear increase, whilst zero emissions would mean CO2 levels remain constant. (As I understand it this isn’t entirely correct due to the uptake in the oceans, so zero emissions are expected to result in levels dropping.)

Thus the temperature rise per time must slow down.

The problem is the logarithmic factor is about equilibrium conditions. It tells you what the final resting place for temperature is, but not necessarily how fast the change is.

This is why your high priests defined the dogma that 1.5 degrees spells doomsday at the Council of Paris.

Which is the point were I lose interest in discussing this with you.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bellman
June 5, 2023 2:48 pm

I misspoke there. I meant that concentration is rising at a roughly constant rate of 2-3 ppm/yr. Yes, it’s probably accelerating a bit, but it’s not far from linear.

Every added molecule is less and less effective at trapping additional heat. If we take 1.7K as the empirical TCR and 3ppm/yr as the rate of concentration increase, starting from 425ppm, then it follows that temperature will rise a further 1.7K when atmospheric concentration reaches 850ppm which will take (425/3 = 142 years). That works out to 3K warmer than 1850 by 2165. Interpolating assuming that it’s nearly linear would tell us that in 77 years, the temp rise would be about 0.92K added to current 1.3 or 2.22K above 1850 at century end. 0.92/77×100=1.2 degrees per century. As previously noted, a slower rise than recently observed.

Bear in mind that this takes as a given that 100% of observed warming has been due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, zero from natural variation.

There is simply NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.

If we frack and build modular next gen nukes for the foreseeable future we can easily reach the level of CO2 emissions that hold atmospheric concentration constant within the next 77 years. Net zero is vast overkill if all we need to do is balance emissions to the dynamic natural sinks.

We can cut emissions to a point that maintains constant CO2
WITH ZERO BIRD SHREDDERS AND ZERO SLAVER PANELS. All while remaining easily within the range that even the IPCC says will be net beneficial to agriculture.

Now I am not opposed to residential rooftop solar if it’s costs are fully paid and nobody has to subsidize it. Windmills and industrial solar I hate because they despoil the wilderness, slaughter endangered wildlife, and displace valuable farmland.

I’m willing to support modestly curtailing fossil fuel use AFTER nuclear capacity is in place, even though that implies some unnecessary cost to society. That would be a reasonable compromise.

You don’t like being reminded that you’re defending your faith-based policies? Well then demonstrate that you’re not just pushing a policy designed to force global communism.

Why do we need to reach net zero in 27 years when it only takes about a 50% reduction to maintain constant concentration? Why not expand natural gas use and make a major push toward next-gen nuclear?

Bellman
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 5, 2023 3:33 pm

I meant that concentration is rising at a roughly constant rate of 2-3 ppm/yr.

I’m not sure I’d agree with that.

20230605wuwt1.png
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
June 5, 2023 3:44 pm

Yes, it’s probably accelerating a bit, but it’s not far from linear.

Over this range there is very little difference between a linear scale and a logarithmic. Here’s the log of CO2 with a linear trend in blue and a quadratic one in red.

20230605wuwt2.png
morfu03
June 3, 2023 9:07 am

>> showing IPCC’s original range of predictions to be 220% [150%, 370%] of mere observed reality.

CMIP6 showed clearly that CMIP5 models are outdated as the better cloud parametrization leads to a significantly different CO2-sensistivity.
As I do not know of anybody claiming that older models do any better in that regards, they are just plain wrong and should not be used in any factual debate.
The same should be said about any publication using older model data, CMIP6 models were released 2019, so any older conclusion is based on false model data.

Climate change, disruption whatever..
Likewise, IMHO this discussion should focus mostly on the potential cause for those effects, the man-made global warming with all uncertainty, maybe particularity highlighting the progress climate science has made in that regards in the last 30 years (close to none).
In that context your reported failure of old models becomes important as it forced climate scientists to include more parameters from the real world in new models generations which still do not match any better.
Did you notice G. Schmidt´s article on real climate on Marhc 16 where beside his positive creative writing and filtering statistical data after it´s creation (mathematically a big no no!) the newest data shows very obviously how clearly the models fail to describe the rel world

JCM
Reply to  morfu03
June 3, 2023 9:16 am

gen 6 MIPs are more constrained in process, and once the prescribed “forcings” are applied temps shoot way out of range. should offer a clue. if the models are good, forcings are wrong.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  JCM
June 3, 2023 9:28 am

The models are useless, because predictions based on their outputs are derived by diagnosing feedback strengths from those outputs – and climatologists did not realize that feedbacks respond not merely to direct warming by us but also to direct warming by natural greenhouse gases (eight times our tiny direct warming) and to direct warming by the Sun (250 times our direct warming). Correct for that monstrous error and feedback analysis proves valueless for predicting global warming. Yet all four of IPCC’s methods of deriving equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity depend on feedback analysis, and IPCC mentions “feedback” >2500 times in its 2021 Sixth ASSessment Report.

JCM
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 3, 2023 9:31 am

thank you. I should have mentioned the inverse that if the initial forcings are right then the models are wrong. Those prescribing the forcings and the modelers are different groups so it allows finger pointing.

bdgwx
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 3, 2023 2:00 pm

From 2013/07 to 2020/12 CMIP3 predicted 0.18 C of warming. A blend of UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISTEMP, and NOAA shows 0.25 C of warming. Over the same time period you predicted 0.5 C of cooling. So if the models are useless because they had an error of 0.07 C then how would describe your method that had an error of 0.75 C?

morfu03
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 3, 2023 8:47 pm

>> The models are useless

Some are, in particular all climate models prior to 2019 when CMIP6 models changed the cloud parametrization
>> feedbacks respond not merely to direct warming by us but also to direct warming by natural greenhouse gases (eight times our tiny direct warming) and to direct warming by the Sun (250 times our direct warming).

As discussed before.. please make sure to label this theory correctly as “your feedback theory” as opposed to that well established feedback theory were the reaction is to the cause, often assumed in a linear fashion.
aka no mater how often you repeat yourself, the sun still does not care at all about anthropogenic CO2 and this the solar forcing are not impressed by it.

Steve Z
June 3, 2023 9:45 am

Politically, the Global Warming skeptics cannot catch a break. BIG jump in Global and USA48 temperatures just as the 2024 presidential election cycle “heats” up. El Nino is a neo-Marxist!

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Steve Z
June 3, 2023 10:44 am

No, It’s another science test and hardness test of woke news consumers.

bnice2000
Reply to  Steve Z
June 3, 2023 2:03 pm

Yep, El Nino has caused all the highly beneficial warming..

.. NOT CO2 !

TheFinalNail
June 3, 2023 11:36 am

This is a much bigger increase than might have been expected from comparison with the ENSO index.

I fear Lord M’s latest nonsensical ‘pause’ in warming is about to go the same way as all his other ones.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 3, 2023 11:51 am

I thought it would be July/August before we saw anomalies this high in UAH. All other things being equal, there’s about a 5-month lag between changes in ENSO and UAH_TLT.

There was an uptick in ENSO in Dec 2022, which you might expect to influence UAH in a warming direction around now; just not on this scale.

bdgwx
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 3, 2023 2:04 pm

Yep. My model says there was only 14% chance of UAH TLT coming in at >= 0.37 C for 2023/05. It could be a fluke or my model could now be underestimating the warming.

Rich Davis
Reply to  bdgwx
June 3, 2023 5:09 pm

My model says you’re so full of it your eyes are brown.

bnice2000
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 3, 2023 2:07 pm

You keep proving to yourself, and everyone else, that you need an El Nino to get some more warming

… because CO2 just doesn’t do it !

bnice2000
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 3, 2023 2:05 pm

Again, the absolute reliance on El Ninos.

It is almost as though you KNOW that the slight warming we have been lucky enough to have..

is nothing to do with CO2. 🙂

TheFinalNail
Reply to  bnice2000
June 3, 2023 4:53 pm

ENSO is a two-edged sword. It warms but it also cools in equal measure (hence ‘oscillation’).

So warm phases enhance background warming. They don’t cause it.

Simon
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 3, 2023 5:39 pm

So warm phases enhance background warming. They don’t cause it.”
He knows that, so he is just wasting your time. Mr benice2000 is the “please Lord let it be anything but CO2” camp.

Mr.
Reply to  Simon
June 3, 2023 7:37 pm

While your camp is the everything is down to CO2″?

(aka ‘the magic molecule’)

Rich Davis
Reply to  Simon
June 4, 2023 2:57 am

It’s more like who cares whether it’s CO2 or chaotic internal variation. It’s a trivial change that is wholly beneficial, Simple S.

Ordinary weather events that are actually occurring less frequently and causing fewer deaths per capita are being hyped up by charlatans like you in order to invent a false crisis.

Simon
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 4, 2023 12:48 pm

“Ordinary weather events that are actually occurring less frequently and causing fewer deaths per capita are being hyped up by charlatans like you in order to invent a false crisis.”
You know they have a name for people like you who just wont accept what is happening. I’ll give you a clue. It starts with D and ends in R and interestingly it loosely rhymes with “liar.”

Rich Davis
Reply to  Simon
June 4, 2023 1:54 pm

Yes Simon. I am a climate emergency denier. There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.

That doesn’t equate to denying that climate exists or climate changes or that it is currently changing. It doesn’t equate to denying that there is a greenhouse gas effect or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that the observed change in CO2 concentration is driven by our fossil fuel emissions.

It means that the observed changes are net beneficial and the proposed “mitigation” to reverse the effects of our emissions would be very harmful to society.

Mike
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 3, 2023 9:19 pm

So warm phases enhance background warming”
Lol.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Mike
June 4, 2023 5:14 pm

Oscillation around a rising trend line will lead to periods of exaggerated warming trends and subsequent “pauses”.

It’s plausible that the rising trend line is caused by our emissions enhancing the greenhouse effect.

I’m far less interested in disputing that than in disputing that a slight trend toward milder nighttime temperatures is somehow a deadly threat requiring a preemptive suicide of the West.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 5, 2023 4:00 am

a slight trend toward milder nighttime temperatures “

That is why you *NEVER* see the Tmax and Tmin trends mentioned by the IPCC, government, or the climate alarmists in any press releases, only the “average” (actually a mid-range). Then everyone simply assumes that the average going up means Tmax is causing it and the earth is going to eventually burn up. See Greta! See the crop failure predictions. See the extinction predictions.

Rich Davis
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 4, 2023 2:45 am

True enough Rusty. ENSO is a key part of the earth’s homeostasis. It guarantees that your scare stories of tipping points and runaway heating can never be more than fables of your false religion.

Bob Weber
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 4, 2023 7:38 am

Your comment has more nuance than you’ve alluding to. ENSO isn’t a zero-sum oscillation with no net effect. Warming and Niño activity happen together:

comment image

Rick Wedel
June 3, 2023 3:37 pm

It’s really discouraging to see that the green industry and the carbon credit industry have become entrenched and are set to cost us all a lot of money. In Canada, the socialist Liberal government is set to add a clean fuel standard tax on top of the existing carbon tax, driving up the price of everything. They have bought the catastrophic human caused global warming narrative – hook, line and sinker.

sherro01
June 3, 2023 6:00 pm

It continues to be cool in Australia. Geoff S
comment image

Joe Born
June 3, 2023 6:19 pm

9 square kilometers seems high for 5 kilowatts of wind-turbine nameplate capacity.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Joe Born
June 4, 2023 8:02 am

Interesting, and I never thought about it. Here’s one finding:

https://sciencing.com/much-land-needed-wind-turbines-12304634.html

Total Wind Farm AreaIn any wind farm there is a lot of space between turbines. Some of that space is to minimize turbulence, but some is to follow ridge lines or avoid other obstacles. Much of this area is used for other purposes, such as agricultural farms. The NREL researchers also surveyed this total land use. They found a rough average of 4 megawatts per square kilometer (about 10 megawatts per square mile). So a 2-megawatt wind turbine would require a total area of about half a square kilometer (about two-tenths of a square mile).

That would be ~36 MW nameplate for 9 square kilometers. Yes, folks, nameplate. Average is, of course, less.

Clyde Spencer
June 3, 2023 7:20 pm

The New Pause Feels the Influence Of The Coming El Niño

This provides an opportunity for a prediction and an experiment to confirm it. There are concerted efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions. Thus, all things being equal, the annual growth in CO2 should be no more than what it has been in recent years, if not actually reduced. However, if there is a noticeable increase in CO2 (If El Niño should take hold.) that would suggest that the ENSO phase has predictive value for the annual CO2 atmospheric concentration increase. That is exactly what has happened at least the last two times there were El Niño events. That strongly suggests that CO2 increases are the result of warming, not the other way around! While some have given good theoretical reasons why warming can’t be driving CO2 increases, they then are compelled to explain why warming events predict increasing CO2 events, and decreases in anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not measurable. Let’s see what happens.

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 3, 2023 7:45 pm

However, if there is a noticeable increase in CO2 (If El Niño should take hold.) that would suggest that the ENSO phase has predictive value for the annual CO2 atmospheric concentration increase.

Does anyone doubt that?

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2018/successful-prediction-of-the-co2-rise-associated-with-2015-2016-el-nino

That strongly suggests that CO2 increases are the result of warming, not the other way around!

Your conclusions do not follow from that argument.

While some have given good theoretical reasons why warming can’t be driving CO2 increases…

I don’t think anyone has argued that. Just that it’s a small driver compared to all the extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
June 4, 2023 8:56 pm

Your conclusions do not follow from that argument.

Perhaps you could expand on that, particularly in the light of your linked Metoffice article saying, “When an El Niño event occurs, a short-term increase in CO2 is added to this background level, causing the extreme weather conditions mentioned above. [Since when does CO2 alone cause extreme weather conditions?] The flooding in Ecuador and droughts in Indonesia prevent plants from photosynthesising to their full capacity, and so the terrestrial biosphere absorbs less CO2 from the atmosphere than usual. Additionally, the extreme temperatures cause widespread plant death, as well as forest fires which release additional CO2 into the atmosphere.

However, as I have demonstrated previously, during El Niño events, the large rise in atmospheric MLO concentrations take place in the Winter/early-Spring, when northern hemisphere photosynthesis is largely shut down, and wild fires are rare.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 5, 2023 2:02 am

Clyde,
 
The following plots are for the two most recent super El Niño events. Here is the effect of the 2015-2016 El Niño on atmospheric CO2 growth rate:
comment image
The Mauna Loa CO2 data are as published by NOAA/ESRL: the red line shows the familiar seasonal cycle, while the black line shows the monthly values after removal of the average seasonal cycle. This greatly facilitates the observation of changes in the rate of growth of atmospheric CO2. I have added the relevant ONI data. The El Niño starts in November 2014 (the centre month of the three month average) and reaches 1.0 in May 2015; the CO2 growth rate changes (rather abruptly) in September 2015. You can check the dates by counting the months from the start of the plot, which is January 2014.
 
The 2015-2016 El Niño shows a very similar response (same data source):
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/to:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/to:1997.7/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.7/to:1998.6/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998.6/to:2001/trend
 
A key observation here is the dramatic change in the rate of growth that occurs. In both examples shown above the rate of growth essentially doubles due to the effect of the El Niño process. Conversely, the rate of growth is reduced during La Niña events and major volcanic eruptions. Incidentally, I do not accept the Metoffice view of the cause of the rate changes, but that, as they say, is another story.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 5, 2023 4:06 am

Additionally, the extreme temperatures cause widespread plant death, as well as forest fires which release additional CO2 into the atmosphere.””

If this were true then we wouldn’t see continued record growth in global grain harvests! I believe most grains *are* plants and would have to be included in the “widespread plant death” prediction.

Somehow reality just never seems to intrude into the world view of the alarmists.

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 5, 2023 6:33 am

particularly in the light of your linked Metoffice article saying

Yes, that particular quote seems like nonsense to me. The short-term increase in CO2 doesn’t cause the extreme weather. It might just be clumsy wording or a bad edit. It would be more accurate (in my non-expert view) to say “When an El Niño event occurs, (causing the extreme weather conditions mentioned above), a short-term increase in CO2 is added to this background level.”.

But as it stands it just seems wrong.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Bellman
June 5, 2023 7:37 am

Comment deleted.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Bellman
June 5, 2023 8:00 am

Edited version:
I agree with your interpretation, but not their reasoning. For some reason, they are determined to blame all ENSO-driven (and Pinatubo-driven) atmospheric CO2 rate changes (up and down) on the terrestrial biosphere, an argument which in my view is contradicted by the 13C/12C data. The view that the ENSO process does not involve significant ocean effects on CO2 fluxes seems rather unlikely to me (understatement!).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
June 5, 2023 11:41 am

OK, thank you for acknowledging that your link does not support the view that CO2 is neither the cause of extreme weather, or responsible for short-term warming.

However, you didn’t respond to my request to expand on your assertion that my statement, “That strongly suggests that CO2 increases are the result of warming, not the other way around!” is not supported. You claim that “… it’s a small driver compared to all the extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere.” Yet, the seasonal ramp-up during El Niño events is steeper than neutral periods or La Niña events. How is it that a ‘small driver’ has more impact?

bdgwx
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 5, 2023 1:16 pm

ENSO is net neutral over long periods of time. So while El Nino might be expected to enhance natural emissions La Nina might be expected to attenuate it. But over several ENSO cycles the effect would be net zero. No?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
June 5, 2023 7:31 pm

What are your unstated assumptions?

bdgwx
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 6, 2023 6:14 am

The only unstated assumption I can think of is that ENSO has been a thing for awhile now.

Jim Ross
Reply to  bdgwx
June 7, 2023 1:15 am

“ENSO is net neutral over long periods of time”. In your model, you use the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) as representative of ENSO variations for input to your model, so I’ll focus on that.
 
ONI is the rolling three month average of the sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly in the Niño-3.4 region in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. ONI appears as net neutral over time, because it has been de-trended. So, as input to a model that attempts to match a parameter that clearly does have a temperature trend (UAH global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly), it would seem to be inappropriate to use this de-trended parameter as input. The removal of the underlying trend in ONI is achieved by applying a moving 30-year climatology baseline as explained here.

The SST in the Niño-3.4 region (measured, not the anomaly) has been increasing since 1950 (at least) and is shown in the plot below. The maximum range of SSTs is consistently about 4 degC at any particular period in time, but we see a gradual shift to higher temperatures (the 30-year climatology range is only about 1.5 degC as shown in link given above, so significant ENSO events will stand out regardless). Both the warming peaks (El Niño) and the cooling troughs (La Niña) have seen increased SSTs by about 1 degC which, over 70 years, equates to 0.14C/decade.
 
We know that changes in the SST anomaly in the Niño-3.4 region are followed by changes in global atmospheric temperatures about 4 months later (except where global temperatures are cooled by major volcanic eruptions). Therefore, we would expect this longer term warming trend of the SSTs to also lead to a warming trend in global atmospheric temperatures.
comment image

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Ross
June 7, 2023 2:14 pm

Yes. I know ONI is detrended. We can certainly look at the actual temperature though. The trend since 1979 is -0.04 C/decade. The ENSO region has been cooling despite ONI having essentially no trend.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt

The other interesting thing going on is that while ENSO 3.4 has cooled since 1979 the global SST itself has warmed significantly. What this means is that when viewed against the global backdrop the effect of El Nino’s are attenuated while La Nina’s are amplified.

comment image

Anyway, bringing this back to the point about CO2 the data seems to falsify the hypothesis that ENSO is amplifying CO2 growth at least over the UAH period of record (1979-present).

Jim Ross
Reply to  bdgwx
June 9, 2023 2:56 am

“The trend since 1979 is -0.04 C/decade. The ENSO region has been cooling despite ONI having essentially no trend.”
 
Yes, and if we were doing this in January 2020 we would be saying that it has been increasing at +0.03 C/decade, demonstrating (yet again) that generating least-square trends based on a highly variable parameter is woefully un-diagnostic because of the effect of end-point selection. The flip to an apparent negative trend is clearly a result of the recent La Niña events.
 
More importantly, your statement about cooling is incorrect. The ONI data that you are using are actually based on ever-increasing SSTs in the ENSO region as shown by the moving 30-year climatology. Here are the actual data:
comment image
 
The annual averages of the climatology applied to each 5-year period are 1950-1955: 26.59C, 1976-1980: 26.81C and 2006-2010: 27.08C. The trend equates to +0.09C/decade both before and since 1979. No cooling. The most recent 30-year period used for the determination of climatology is 1991-2020, which will be updated at the beginning of 2026. Currently, the climatology for 2006-2010 has been applied for subsequent ONI calculations but, if the observed trend continues, the current 5-year period will have an average SST climatology that is higher than that currently assumed by about 0.14C.
 
In conclusion, the climatology data clearly show a warming trend in the SST of the Niño-3.4 region. The rate of warming is the same before and after 1979 and does not support your view of cooling since 1979. If the rate of increase in SST is subsequently shown to continue at the same level, the ENSO region will have warmed since 1950 by over 0.6C as of today. Your model needs revising.
 
Your second point: “Anyway, bringing this back to the point about CO2 the data seems to falsify the hypothesis that ENSO is amplifying CO2 growth at least over the UAH period of record (1979-present).” Nope, the opposite is the case. The data clearly show warming of the ENSO region, which is entirely consistent with more natural growth in atmospheric CO2.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Ross
June 9, 2023 4:15 am

the current 5-year period will have an average SST climatology that is higher than that currently assumed by about 0.14C.”

will have warmed since 1950 by over 0.6C”

Respectfully, these differences are well within the uncertainty intervals associated with the data. Our temperature measuring devices don’t have the resolution to justify calculating differences in the hundredths digit. In essence we don’t *know* whether there has been warming or cooling.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 9, 2023 5:23 am

I appreciate your point, but I am intentionally using the same data as bdgwx uses in his model in order to comment on the validity or otherwise of his model. The SST data provided by NOAA form the basis of the calculation of ONI, which is directly used by bdgwx in his model. The SST data are documented to two decimal places, as shown here: https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
 
My point was not to quibble over the precision of the data provided by NOAA, since I wanted to highlight that, based on these data, bdgwx was failing to recognise significant warming underlying the ONI data that he was using. That was the question at issue. In my view, warming of 0.09C/decade in the ENSO region is significant when compared to UAH global warming of 0.13C/decade (which bdgwx is aiming to match with his model).

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Ross
June 9, 2023 6:42 am

Thank you. I understand where you are coming from. Using their own data to show incorrect conclusions.

However, neither bdgwx or bellman ever want to consider uncertainty in their model outputs. They just assume that all stated data from NOAA is 100% accurate and there is no need to consider resolution or uncertainty. If the differences are within the uncertainty interval then trying to judge statistical significance is impossible. It’s like arguing about the average number of angels on the head of a pin when you have no idea what the actual number of angels is for any specific pin.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 9, 2023 7:41 am

“…bellman ever want to consider uncertainty in their model outputs. ”

Please stop lying about me. Most of my model graphs show the uncertainty in the output. I can’t help it if you can’t or won’t understand the point of my graphs, which is not to predict the future or assess how accurate the input are. It’s simply to demonstrate why you are wrong to claim the pause is impossible if CO2 caused warming.

“They just assume that all stated data from NOAA is 100% accurate and there is no need to consider resolution or uncertainty.”

As always your hypocracy is glaring. Never once do you attack Moncjton for assuming UAH data is “100% accurate”. You hate it when I point out the uncertainty in the pause trend line, and even insist there is zero uncertainty in a linear regression. And you say figuring out the exact start date for the pause is no different to figuring out where a deer was shot.

On short you ignore uncertainty when you like the result, but use it as an excuse for rejection all results you don’t like.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
June 9, 2023 3:16 pm

Your “uncertainty” is always how the regression line fits the stated values of the data. The sum of the squared errors if you will. That has nothing to do with the uncertainty in the data values and how that uncertainty affects the regression line.

If the data uncertainty is +/- 1 then ANY trend line that fits inside the bounded area of each data point +/- 1 can be the true trend line. If you have three data points (which is all you need to define a line) with stated x,y values of 0,1, 1,2, and 2,3 then the trend line through the y-values of 1,2, and 3 would seem to be the best fi, the “true” regression linet. But if you add in the uncertainty of +/-1 then the first data point can be anywhere from 0,0 to 0,2 The second data point can be anywhere between 1,1 and 1,3. The third data point can then be anywhere 2,2 to 2,4.

Any trend line that fits in that uncertainty interval is equally possible. It doesn’t even have to be linear. It could go from y=2 at x=0 to y=0 at x=1 and jump up to y=4 at x =2!

YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS INSIDE THE UNCERTAINTY INTERVAL!

It simply doesn’t matter what I do with Monckton’s posts. It’s *YOUR* posts I am addressing. You are just trying to deflect because you know I am right.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 9, 2023 5:05 pm

It simply doesn’t matter what I do with Monckton’s posts. It’s *YOUR* posts I am addressing.

And I’ll continue to call you out as a hypocrite for it. Ypou clearly don’t care about uncertainty, or believe your own nonsensical claims if you are not only not prepared to call out Monckton for ignoring any type of uncertainty, let alone your own fantasy version.

And it’s not just that you don’t call him out on the subject, you positively praise him, and attack anyone who points out the uncertainty in his own calculations. You also claim his pause, with zero uncertainty, proves something about CO2’s role in changing temperatures.

It’s really simple. If Monckton says there has definitely has been a pause, month after month, and my contribution is to say it isn’t proven because there is too much uncertainty in the trend – it’s very idiotic of you to complain I’m underestimating the uncertainty in the trend, whilst insisting there is no uncertainty in the pause.

Let’s put some figures on this.

I say the trend from August 2014 is close to zero, but that the 95% confidence interval on that zero trend is huge, based entirely on the variability in the monthly figures over such a short period. I estimate the confidence interval to be around ± 0.45°C / decade. Meaning it is not significantly different to the overall trend, so no convincing evidence of a pause.

You complain I’m just using the variability in the data, rather than some imagined huge measurement uncertainty owing to how useless UAH data is (maybe as much as ±1°C), and you also claim that by ignoring all the laws of probability, the true trend could be anything within that uncertainty envelope. Which by your logic makes the uncertainty of the pause something like ± 2°C / decade. 4 times bigger than my own estimate.

Yet you still insist that somehow that means the pause is correct, and I’m wrong to point out its flaws.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
June 10, 2023 9:41 am

And I’ll continue to call you out as a hypocrite for it. Ypou clearly don’t care about uncertainty, or believe your own nonsensical claims if you are not only not prepared to call out Monckton for ignoring any type of uncertainty, let alone your own fantasy version.”

Quit whining. You can call me a hypocrite if it soothes your soul but that doesn’t change the fact that you ignore the uncertainty in the data you use. And that’s the bottom line.

I praise Monckton for showing what you refuse to show. He uses *YOUR* data and that apparently chaps your backside to no end.

Your uncertainty in the trend is, once again, based on nothing more than the residuals between the stated values and your trend line while totally ignoring the uncertainty of the data.

Nothing you can say will change that.

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
June 10, 2023 5:13 pm

I praise Monckton for showing what you refuse to show. He uses *YOUR* data and that apparently chaps your backside to no end.”

It’s not my data. It that produced by Spencer and Christie, and I don’t even suggest it’s very accurate. I only use it because it’s the only data approved for use by Monckton and everyone else here.

Now, hypocrite, once you”ve stopped praising Monckton, and fantasizing about my backside, tell me what you think Monckton is showing that I’m refusing to show.

I’ll attach my usual graph showing the pause. It shows everything Monckton’s graph does, and then some. I show my estimate the uncertainty in the trend. Monckton shows zero uncertainty. I show the trend leading up to the pause, where as Monckton would prefer you to not see the pause in context.

If you want to whine about me not showing enough uncertainty, because I’m not treating the measurement uncertainty into account, fair enough – you tell me what you think the uncertainty of the pause should be, and if it’s much greater than what I show, explain why you continue to praise Monckton for not showing this uncertainty.

20230610wuwt1.png
Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 5, 2023 3:19 pm

OK, thank you for acknowledging that your link does not support the view that CO2 is neither the cause of extreme weather, or responsible for short-term warming.

Twisting my words. My point was that it would be wrong to say that the small additional increase in CO2 during an El Niño was responsible for the extreme weather during that year. That’s not to say that increasing CO2 doesn’t cause warming, or that warming won’t lead to more extreme weather.

“However, you didn’t respond to my request to expand on your assertion that my statement, “That strongly suggests that CO2 increases are the result of warming, not the other way around!” is not supported.”

My point was mostly that you were making a false assumption. You said:

However, if there is a noticeable increase in CO2 (If El Niño should take hold.) that would suggest that the ENSO phase has predictive value for the annual CO2 atmospheric concentration increase. That is exactly what has happened at least the last two times there were El Niño events. That strongly suggests that CO2 increases are the result of warming, not the other way around!

There’s no logic in claiming that El Niños causing a small increase in CO2 implies that CO2 does not cause warming. Nor does it imply that most of the increase in CO2 was caused by warming.

I’ve gone over multiple reasons multiple times why I don’t think it’s creditable that the rise in CO2 was caused by rising temperatures. A couple of the top of my head are:

  1. You need to explain what happened to all the carbon released by human activity. The estimated emissions from human activity is greater than the observed atmospheric increase. If all the rise in CO2 was caused by warming, and the carbon we’ve emitted hasn’t simply vanished into thin air, then it must all have gone into the oceans, plant’s or animals, and is now part of the carbon cycle, which means it’s still adding to the increase even if you don’t think it’s going directly into the atmosphere.
  2. There’s no evidence for anything resembling the size of the increase in recent history. We’ve had all these warming periods lasting centuries, some claiming temperatures were warmer than today, yet CO2 levels barely changed by more than 10-20ppm. During changes in glaciations we see temperature changes of 5-10°C, yet CO2 only changes by a similar amount to what we’ve seen over the last few decades. Temperatures were several degrees warmer than today, yet CO2 levels never reached 350ppm. Why should this “modest” increase of around 1°C cause such a dramatic increase in CO2?
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
June 5, 2023 8:01 pm

I’ve gone over multiple reasons multiple times why I don’t think it’s creditable [sic] that the rise in CO2 was caused by rising temperatures.

Let’s look at it this way. Because you consider it reasonable that the warming from an El Niño will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2, why wouldn’t warming from any other source similarly cause CO2 to increase? How does Gaia know that she should only get hot and bothered by an El Niño, and expel CO2? How does she know the source of the heat and not act uniformly and predictably? As long as the Earth is warming, we should expect increased out-gassing, accelerated microbial decomposition, longer periods of respiration in boreal forests, and increased precipitation of carbonates from the oceans.

You need to explain what happened to all the carbon released by human activity.

When you consider how much limestone exists in the world, and yet is rarely mentioned in the climatology literature, I suspect that the natural sequestration is seriously underestimated. It is another of the many negative feedback loops. Calcium carbonate becomes less soluble as the oceans warm, resulting in precipitation, removing it from the aqueous system. Warming oceans can encourage growth of marine calcifiers (up to a point), and also remove carbonates from the oceans.

The bottom line, however, is how can transient warming cause increases in atmospheric CO2, and not respond to long-term warming?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 6, 2023 4:44 am

You are questioning religious dogma. It’s an issue of faith not fact.

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 6, 2023 6:08 am

Because you consider it reasonable that the warming from an El Niño will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2, why wouldn’t warming from any other source similarly cause CO2 to increase?

I specifically pointed out that warming from any source will increase CO2. I don’t follow your dogma that there can only be one possible cause for any phenomena. In the past temperature was the dominant factor in CO2 levels, mainly from the relationship between sea temperatures and how much CO2 they can contain. That relationship hasn’t changed in the modern era, it’s just that there is now a much more important factor, the COL2 we have added to the cycle.

How does she know the source of the heat and not act uniformly and predictably?

Maybe it is uniform maybe it isn’t. But you still are intent on ignoring the obvious point, that any additional CO2 released because of a specific temperature is in addition to all the predictable increase caused by the added CO2 from anthropogenic sources.

As long as the Earth is warming, we should expect increased out-gassing, accelerated microbial decomposition, longer periods of respiration in boreal forests, and increased precipitation of carbonates from the oceans.

Carbon atoms do not come to earth from another dimension. Every atom in one place has to have come from a different place. It there is more carbon stored in forests then that has to have been taken from the air. If forests are releasing more carbon at night it is only the stuff they absorbed during the day. If more carbon is being released through decomposition it’s only because more carbon was taken from the air before decomposition.

Without an additional source of carbon, the carbon cycle is a zero sum game (and probably less than that as carbon gets lost from the cycle).

If atmospheric CO2 goes up without any additional source, it can only be because either there is less life on the planet, or becasue there is less carbon in the oceans. And as everyone says the world is greening due to the increases atmospheric CO2 it can only be coming from the oceans.

So now all you have to do is show the evidence that oceans have less CO2, and we might be getting somewhere. It’s just to the best of my knowledge all the evidence is that CO2 levels in the oceans are increasing.

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
June 6, 2023 6:16 am

Continued

When you consider how much limestone exists in the world, and yet is rarely mentioned in the climatology literature, I suspect that the natural sequestration is seriously underestimated.

So how does the limestone know it has to sequester anthropogenic CO2, but not all the stuff coming out the oceans?

The bottom line, however, is how can transient warming cause increases in atmospheric CO2, and not respond to long-term warming?

Again, I think both are possible – but it doesn’t explain why a “modest” increase in temperature has produced unprecedented (in the last few hundred thousand years) levels of CO2, and how you think hundreds of gigatonnes of carbon can be released by human activity into the atmosphere and then just vanish.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
June 6, 2023 12:57 pm

So how does the limestone know it has to sequester anthropogenic CO2, but not all the stuff coming out the oceans?

It doesn’t! It sequesters with equal opportunity. That’s really the point I have been trying to get you to understand. Whatever happens when Earth warms, all CO2 must be effected, not just anthropogenic. When water warms, two things happen: 1) calcium carbonate (CaO – CO2) becomes less soluble and some precipitates out; 1) carbon dioxide becomes less soluble, and some out-gases.

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 6, 2023 2:25 pm

It doesn’t! It sequesters with equal opportunity.

But you brought up limestone as an answer to my question “You need to explain what happened to all the carbon released by human activity.”

If human emissions have almost no effect on rising CO2 levels, because most of it is being eaten by the limestone, and limestone is also eating the same proportion of the increased emissions from the warming ocean, just how much of an increase from the oceans do you think is needed to have a noticeable increase in atmospheric CO2?

And come to think of it, if the limestone absorbs nearly all the anthropogenic emissions, without knowing where they come from, why doesn’t it also absorb all the CO2 in the atmosphere?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bellman
June 6, 2023 12:48 pm

If atmospheric CO2 goes up without any additional source, it can only be because either there is less life on the planet, or becasue there is less carbon in the oceans.

Not so. The Arctic is warming (apparently faster than the rest of the Earth), releasing both CO2 and CH4, which gets oxidized to CO2, from the abundant organic material in the tundra. There is a reason why the seasonal variation in CO2 in Antarctica is almost flat, while Point Barrow has a greater amplitude than Mauna Loa.

It’s just to the best of my knowledge all the evidence is that CO2 levels in the oceans are increasing.

The evidence for that is poor. It was decided by a ‘climatologist’ that the historical records were unsuited for comparison with modern measurements. He, therefore, developed a simple model that predicted that the recent historical pH was 8.2, while modern measurements were about 8.1 pH. Ergo, the oceans were accumulating CO2. Another example of comparing apples and apricots and claiming that a 0.1 decline in pH was alarming enough to give it a pejorative name.

… any additional CO2 released because of a specific temperature is in addition to all the predictable increase caused by the added CO2 from anthropogenic sources.

I have demonstrated that while the increase in CO2 is obvious during warming El Niño events, declines in anthropogenic CO2 do not produce measurable declines in CO2 (or the rate of increase) or temperature. How can anthropogenic emissions be the most important when it is the only contribution that does not produce measurable effects?

Bellman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 6, 2023 2:12 pm

The Arctic is warming (apparently faster than the rest of the Earth), releasing both CO2 and CH4, which gets oxidized to CO2, from the abundant organic material in the tundra.

Ah good, something else to worry about. From what I can tell there’s a lot of uncertainty about how much CO2 could be released in the future, but I’m not sure how much evidence there is that it’s currently happening enough to explain the rise over the last century.

There is a reason why the seasonal variation in CO2 in Antarctica is almost flat, while Point Barrow has a greater amplitude than Mauna Loa.

I would guess it’s because the further north you go, the greater the season variation in plant life. Looking at the Point Barrow data, the big change happens July – September when the levels drop dramatically, before increasing again in October. That doesn’t suggest to me a release of CO2 caused by thawing. To me it suggests a sudden growth in plant life sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere.

The evidence for that is poor.

Then point to your preferred evidence that oceanic CO2 levels are declining.

I have demonstrated that while the increase in CO2 is obvious during warming El Niño events, declines in anthropogenic CO2 do not produce measurable declines in CO2 (or the rate of increase) or temperature.

What declines in CO2 [emissions]. The only recent decline was 2020, and that was only down to levels comparable to 2016.

Source:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

annual-co2-emissions-per-country.png
Bob Weber
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 4, 2023 12:04 pm

“This provides an opportunity for a prediction and an experiment to confirm it.”

Clyde, the data below indicates your idea has already been confirmed. There is a statistically significant relationship with p<.01 between the 12mo change in CO2 anomaly and the 12mo change in equatorial heat content anomaly, where the CO2a lags eqOHCa by 13 months:

comment image

If you study the weekly CO2 and Niño12 & 3.4 data you can pick this lag out by inspection:

comment image

Predictions:

I predict (1) high solar activity will continue to drive SST and eqOHC upward through the solar cycle maximum, like it did during the last cycle, and (2) there will be a subsequent increase in CO2 positive anomalies such as after the TSI peak of SC24 in Feb/March of 2015.

The TSI peak drove the 2015/16 El Niño and positive eqOHC anomalies right up until the point when SORCE TSI fell below my decadal sun-ocean warming threshold, at point (i) in my 2018 AGU poster Fig. 10 below, when at that time, there was the 3.06ppm CO2 positive anomaly on March 10, 2016 that is marked and labelled on my CO2 anomaly plot above, an anomaly greater than the climatological average amount for that week!

comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
June 4, 2023 12:03 am

Why does the ice in the Chukchi Sea grow in June? Is it an extended La Nina effect?
comment image
comment image

Does a similar effect occur in the south?
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
June 4, 2023 12:54 am

Observing the current circulation in the Pacific (strong polar vortex in the south) and the temperature in the eastern Pacific, I believe that the Niño 3.4 index will remain neutral . This is evidenced by the formation of typhoons in the Philippine Sea.
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
June 4, 2023 1:06 am

The western Pacific is seeing more tropical storms after a recent strong typhoon. This is a circulation more in line with La Niña than El Niño.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/wpac/mimictpw_wpac_latest.gif

Ireneusz Palmowski
June 4, 2023 1:17 am

As for solar activity, data from Oulu show that the level of galactic radiation in cycle 25 is now at a similar level to that of the cycle 25 maximum and is decreasing. So the magnetic field of the solar wind reaching the Earth is also at the level of cycle 24. So the magnetic activity of the Sun is at a similar.
comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
June 4, 2023 12:56 pm

Sorry. Galactic radiation is starting to rise.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

Ireneusz Palmowski
June 4, 2023 1:26 am

Graphic shows how eruptions on the Sun affect ozone production in the upper stratosphere. You can see the drop in temperature caused by the decrease in ozone production by the most energetic UV radiation (which breaks down diatomic oxygen).
comment image

Steve Richards
June 4, 2023 5:35 am

In the head post was 5 Kw meant to be 5 GW?

donklipstein
June 4, 2023 6:13 am

As for bringing up pauses in the UAH v6 TLT record: As of a month ago, I saw the entire UAH v6 TLT record from December 1979 to April 2023 (44 years 5 months) being fully covered by 4 pauses. https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/to:2023.26/trend/plot/uah6/to:2023.26/plot/uah6/from:1997.41/to:2015.93/trend/plot/uah6/from:2014.49/to:2023.26/trend/plot/uah6/from:1986.58/to:1997.43/trend/plot/uah6/from:1986.66/to:1997.51/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978.91/to:1987.84/trend

bdgwx
Reply to  donklipstein
June 4, 2023 11:09 am

That is a nice illustration of Simpson’s Paradox. 100% of the months in the UAH record are within a pause. Some of the months are even included in 2 pauses.

What is also interesting is this is not unexpected or out of the ordinary. The CMIP5 suite of models says that there is about a 20% chance that a month will have a trailing trend <= 0.0 C/decade lasting 8 years. It also says there is a 100% that each month will be contained with a pause at least at some point.

This is why a few us here say that the Monckton Pause has little if any use in drawing conclusions about global warming or the expectations going forward.

karlomonte
Reply to  bdgwx
June 4, 2023 5:11 pm

“Believe the models, not data…”

donklipstein
Reply to  donklipstein
June 5, 2023 8:56 am

I did a random noise simulation of UAH TLT using the WFT random noise generator, some smoothing and adding a slope of .1334 degree/decade (which is the actual slope of the entire UAH v6 TLT record as of sometime recently). I got a little over 77 years of such a simulation about 92% covered by 5 pauses with average pause duration a little over 14 years. I only had to cheat slightly with noise intensity, and I think I wouldn’t have needed to even do that if the noise source was the sum of a large number of random number generators instead of a single random number generator. With multiple random number generators, I expect the big spikes to get bigger and more unevenly bigger, even with a noise intensity that has most of the spikes being a little smaller.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/noise/mean:15/mean:5/scale:1.8/detrend:-1.334/from:1922.24/to:2000.01/plot/noise/mean:15/mean:5/scale:1.8/detrend:-1.334/from:1922.74/to:1938.01/trend/plot/noise/mean:15/mean:5/scale:1.8/detrend:-1.334/from:1941.24/to:1962.42/trend/plot/noise/mean:15/mean:5/scale:1.8/detrend:-1.334/from:1971.92/to:1985.01/trend/plot/noise/mean:15/mean:5/scale:1.8/detrend:-1.334/from:1987.74/to:2000.01/trend/plot/noise/mean:15/mean:5/scale:1.8/detrend:-1.334/from:1962.16/to:1971.51/trend

Dave Fair
June 4, 2023 10:57 am

With over 44 years of high-quality data, UAH6 shows a trend of 0.13℃/decade (1.3℃/century if one feels safe in extrapolating the 44+ year trend). CliSciFi practitioners ignore UAH6’s crucial data in maintaining the 3℃ ECS fiction. [Yes, yes, yes. ECS is calculated over multiple centuries.]

Rich Davis
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 4, 2023 1:18 pm

Yes, yes, yes. ECS is calculated over multiple centuries.

It sounds like you actually grasp this but the wording is prone to misinterpretation and confusion for others so I am jumping in to add context.

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is a different animal altogether from any time-based rate of temperature change such as degrees per century. It is temperature change per doubling of CO2 concentration, after reaching equilibrium. Different units of measure entirely.

It takes centuries to observe the dynamic long-term equilibrium if indeed other factors were to hold constant so that a near equilibrium could eventually be reached. I think that’s what you meant by “calculated over multiple centuries”?

Also at the rate that CO2 is increasing in our practical case, it takes a couple of centuries to double concentration. But that is not in principle the same kind of issue as the time it takes for feedbacks to interact and settle into equilibrium. If we could emit CO2 say ten times faster, we could double CO2 concentration in less than a century. It would still take centuries to reach “steady state”.

ECS is an extremely theoretical concept that can’t truly be observed empirically because the chaotic system is so dynamic.

What gets measured is the Transient Climate Response (TCR) which is the temperature change observed after a doubling of CO2 concentration.

In the case of TCR we can make a measurement of temperature change after any observed change in concentration and then adjust the temperature change observed by the ratio of a doubled concentration to the observed concentration change. Various assumptions can then imply the ECS value corresponding to the TCR.

Ireneusz Palmowski
June 4, 2023 11:34 pm

The graph shows a clear trend in the strength of the solar dynamo. I don’t know why it ends on 08.07.2022.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Similarly, the chart below also ends on 08.07.2022.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif

Ireneusz Palmowski
June 5, 2023 12:16 am

Circulation in the northeast Pacific is consistent with La Niña. Tropical storms are beginning to form west of Central America.
comment image
The unusually strong monsoon season in Southeast Asia is beginning.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights