Facebook Twitter Youtube

The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

Special to Climate Depot

[Also see: It’s Official – There are now 66 excuses for Temp ‘pause’ – Updated list of 66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming –  Surface Data: 2014 Officially the ‘Warmest Year on Record’ & Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – Physicist analyzes satellite temperature data: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’

For more explanation of how the ‘pause’ in global warming conflicts with the claims of 2014 being the ‘hottest year ever’ based on surface data, see related links below.  ]

#

The Great Pause lengthens again

Global temperature update: the Pause is now 18 years 3 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS [1] temperature plot pushes up the period without any global warming from 18 years 2 months to 18 years 3 months.

Monckton jan 2014

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 3 months since October 1996.

The hiatus period of 18 years 3 months, or 219 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

As the Pope unwisely prepares to abandon forever the political neutrality that his office enjoins upon him, and to put his signature to a climate-Communist encyclical largely drafted by the radical Prefect of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Mgr. Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the Almighty continues to display a sense of humor.

We are now less than a year away the Paris world-government conference. Yet the global warming that the IPCC had so confidently but misguidedly predicted 25 years ago has stopped altogether.

Monckton jan 2014 2

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century, made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to November 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.4 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

A quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS [1] and UAH [2] monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or a little below half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though approaching 70 mutually incompatible and more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals and among proselytizing scientists, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed, and is demonstrated in a major peer-reviewed paper published this month in the Orient’s leading science journal.

Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

+++

Monckton jan 2014 3

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to November 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and zero real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.

Key facts about global temperature

  • The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 219 months from October 1996 to December 2014 – more than half the 432-month satellite record.
  • The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
  • Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
  • The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
  • In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
  • The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
  • Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
  • The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
  • The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
  • From September 2001 to November 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 3 months.
  • Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that. 

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.

But is the RSS satellite dataset “cherry-picked”? No. There are good reasons to consider it the best of the five principal global-temperature datasets. The indefatigable “Steven Goddard” demonstrated in the autumn of 2014 that the RSS dataset – at least as far as the Historical Climate Network is concerned – shows less warm bias than the GISS [3] or UAH [2] records. The UAH record is shortly to be revised to reduce its warm bias and bring it closer to conformity with RSS.

Monckton jan 2014 4

Figure 4. Warm biases in temperature. RSS shows less bias than the UAH or GISS records. UAH, in its forthcoming Version 6.0, will be taking steps to reduce the warm bias in its global-temperature reporting.

Steven Goddard writes: “The graph compares UAH, RSS and GISS US temperatures with the actual measured US HCN stations. UAH and GISS both have a huge warming bias, while RSS is close to the measured daily temperature data. The small difference between RSS and HCN is probably because my HCN calculations are not gridded. My conclusion is that RSS is the only credible data set, and all the others have a spurious warming bias.”

Also, the RSS data show the 1998 Great El Niño more clearly than all other datasets. The Great el Niño, like its two predecessors in the past 300 years, caused widespread global coral bleaching, providing an independent verification that RSS is better able to capture such fluctuations without artificially filtering them out than other datasets.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which provide an independent verification of the temperature measurements by checking via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The RSS graph (Fig. 1) is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

RSS itself is now taking a serious interest in the length of the Great Pause. Dr Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at RSS, discusses it at remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures.

Dr Mears’ results are summarized in Fig. 5:

Monckton jan 2014 5

Figure 5. Output of 33 IPCC models (turquoise) compared with measured RSS global temperature change (black), 1979-2014. The transient coolings caused by the volcanic eruptions of Chichón (1983) and Pinatubo (1991) are shown, as is the spike in warming caused by the great el Niño of 1998.

Dr Mears writes:

“The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation.  This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.”

Dr Mears concedes the growing discrepancy between the RSS data and the models, but he alleges “cherry-picking” of the start-date for the global-temperature graph:

“Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.  Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of ‘I saw this plot on a denialist web site.  Is this really your data?’  While some of these reports have ‘cherry-picked’ their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate.  … The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.”

In fact, the spike in temperatures caused by the Great el Niño of 1998 is largely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the not dissimilar spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself.

Replacing all the monthly RSS anomalies for 1998 with the mean anomaly value of 0.55 K that obtained during the 2010 el Niño and recalculating the trend from September 1996 [not Dr Mears’ “1997”] to September 2014 showed that the trend values “–0.00 C° (–0.00 C°/century)” in the unaltered data (Fig. 1) became “+0.00 C° (+0.00 C°/century)” in the recalculated graph. No cherry-picking, then.

The length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

IPCC’s First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. For the rate of global warming since 1990 is about half what the IPCC had then predicted.

Is the ocean warming?

One frequently-discussed explanation for the Great Pause is that the coupled ocean-atmosphere system has continued to accumulate heat at approximately the rate predicted by the models, but that in recent decades the heat has been removed from the atmosphere by the ocean and, since globally the near-surface strata show far less warming than the models had predicted, it is hypothesized that what is called the “missing heat” has traveled to the little-measured abyssal strata below 2000 m, whence it may emerge at some future date.

The ocean “missing heat” theory is chiefly advocated by a single group in the United States. Meehl, Arblaster, Fasullo, Hu and Trenberth [7] say, “Eight decades with a slightly negative global mean surface-temperature trend show that the ocean above 300 m takes up significantly less heat whereas the ocean below 300 m takes up significantly more, compared with non-hiatus decades. The model provides a plausible depiction of processes in the climate system causing the hiatus periods, and indicates that a hiatus period is a relatively common climate phenomenon and may be linked to La Niña-like conditions,” while Balmaseda, Trenberth and Källen [8] say, “In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced,” and Trenberth & Fasullo [2013], repeated in Trenberth, Fasullo & Balmaseda [9], say, “An inventory of energy storage changes shows that over 90% of the imbalance is manifested as a rise in ocean heat content (OHC). … Global warming has not stopped: it is merely manifested in different ways.”

The U.S. group is supported by a group at the Chinese Academy of Sciences [10]: “A vacillating global heat sink at intermediate ocean depths is associated with different climate regimes of surface warming under anthropogenic forcing. The latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans. … Cooling periods associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years.” In [11] the academicians speculate that at some future date the hiatus may change its sign, leading to a further episode of perhaps accelerated global warming.

Yet to date no empirical, theoretical or numerical method, complex or simple, has yet successfully specified mechanistically either how the heat generated by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas enrichment of the atmosphere has reached the deep ocean without much altering the heat content of the intervening near-surface strata or how the heat from the bottom of the ocean may eventually re-emerge to perturb the near-surface climate conditions that are relevant to land-based life on Earth.

Most ocean models used in performing coupled general-circulation model sensitivity runs simply cannot resolve most of the physical processes relevant for capturing heat uptake by the deep ocean. Ultimately, the second law of thermodynamics requires that any heat which may have accumulated in the deep ocean will dissipate via various diffusive processes. It is not plausible that any heat taken up by the deep ocean will suddenly warm the upper ocean and, via the upper ocean, the atmosphere.

Even if heat is reaching the benthic strata without warming the near-surface strata on the way, the transient near-surface response is rather insensitive to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. For this reason, resolving ocean thermodynamics and circulation dynamics is not a prerequisite to the empirical study of climate sensitivity by way of our simple model. If the “deep heat” explanation for the hiatus in global warming is correct (and it is merely one among dozens that have been offered), then the complex models have failed to account for it correctly: otherwise, the growing discrepancy between the predicted and observed atmospheric warming rates would not have become as significant as it has.

Since the complex models have failed in this respect, and since there are insufficient deep-ocean observations to provide reliable quantitative evidence of the putative heat accumulation below 2000 m, still less to determine the mechanism of the imagined heat transfer, still less again to apportion duly the respective contributions of anthropogenic, solar and subsea volcanic influences on the benthic heat accumulation, it is surely unreasonable for our simple model to be expected to do what the complex models have self-evidently failed to do – and what cannot be done by any model, simple or complex, unless and until measurements of far higher resolution than is now to hand become available at all points of the oceanic column. For instance, the 3500 automated Argo bathythermograph buoys have a resolution equivalent to taking a single temperature  and salinity profile in Lake Superior less than once a year: and before Argo came onstream in the middle of the last decade the resolution of oceanic temperature measurements was considerably poorer even than that, especially in the abyssal strata.

The mean depth of the global ocean is 3700 m. As recently observed in [11], implicitly questioning the U.S. group’s assertions in [7-9], the resolution of samples at various depths and the length of the record are both insufficient either to permit reliable measurement of ocean heat content or to permit monitoring of oceanic radiative fluxes:

“Some basic elements of the sampling problem are compiled in Table 2. About 52% of the ocean lies below 2000 m and about 18% below 3600 m. By defining a volume as having been ‘probed’ if at least one CTD station existed within a roughly 60 x 60 km2 box in the interval 1992-2011 … [a]bout 1/3 (11% of total volume) of water below 2000 m was sampled … Of the [region] lying below 3600 m, about 17% was measured. … [M]any papers assume no significant changes take place in the deep ocean over the historical period … The history of exploration suggests, however, that blank places on the map have either been assumed to be without any interesting features and dropped from further discussion, or at the other extreme, filled with ‘dragons’ invoked to explain strange reports [in G. de Jode, 1578, Speculum Orbis Terrarum, Antwerp]. …

“[R]ecently, [60] offered estimates of abyssal changes with claimed accuracies of order of 0.01 W/m2 (0.0004°C temperature change equivalent over 20 years) below 700 m. If that accuracy has in fact been obtained, the sparse coverage, perhaps extended to the scope of WOCE hydrographic survey, repeated every few decades, would be sufficient.”

Furthermore, almost all current analyses of ocean heat content and budget lack an accurate accounting of spatial, temporal and other systematic errors and uncertainties such as those identified in recent works by a group at the Chinese Academy of Sciences [12]:

“In this study, a new source of uncertainties in calculating OHC due to the insufficiency of vertical resolution in historical ocean subsurface temperature profile observations was diagnosed. This error was examined by sampling a high-vertical-resolution climatological ocean according to the depth intervals of in situ subsurface observations, and then the error was defined as the difference between the OHC calculated by subsampled profiles and the OHC of the climatological ocean. The obtained resolution-induced error appeared to be cold in the upper 100 m (with a peak of approximately −0.1°C), warm within 100–700 m (with a peak of ~0.1°C near 180 m), and warm when averaged over 0–700-m depths (with a global average of ~0.01°–0.025°C, ~1–2.5 × 1022 J). Geographically, it showed a warm bias within 30°S–30°N and a cold bias at higher latitudes in both hemispheres, the sign of which depended on the concave or convex shape of the vertical temperature profiles. Finally, the authors recommend maintaining an unbiased observation system in the future: a minimal vertical depth bin of 5% of the depth was needed to reduce the vertical-resolution-induced bias to less than 0.005°C on global average (equal to Argo accuracy).”

Again [13]:

“… a new correction scheme for historical XBT data is proposed for nine independent probe-type groups. The scheme includes corrections for both temperature and depth records, which are all variable with calendar year, water temperature, and probe type. The results confirm those found in previous studies: a slowing in fall rate during the 1970s and 2000s and the large pure thermal biases during 1970–85. The performance of nine different correction schemes is compared. After the proposed corrections are applied to the XBT data in the WOD09 dataset, global ocean heat content from 1967 to 2010 is reestimated.”

A forthcoming paper [14], after properly accounting for some of the sampling biases and instrumental errors and uncertainties in the ocean heat content data (i.e., applying the new global ocean temperature dataset from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics), describes a vertical profile of ocean temperature change from 2004-2013, reporting a warming hiatus above 100 m depth and from 300-700 m. The two layers that show warming are 100-300 m and 700-1500 m. These warming strata show their own distinctive horizontal spatial patterns when compared to the non-warming stratum at 300-700 meters. This observational fact leads to the following conclusion:

“It is still unclear how the heat is transferring to the deeper ocean.”

Furthermore, the suggestion that heat accumulation in the deep ocean explains why there has been no global warming at all for up to 18 years is far from generally accepted in the scientific literature. A remarkable variety of competing and often mutually exclusive explanations for the hiatus in global warming, chiefly involving near-surface phenomena, are offered in recent papers in the reviewed journals of climate science.

In the literature, the cause of the hiatus in global warming is variously attributed to (1) coverage-induced cool bias in recent years [15], rebutted by [16] and, with respect to Arctic coverage, by [17]; (2) anthropogenic aerosols from coal-burning [18], rebutted by [19-20]; (3) decline in the warming caused by black-carbon absorption [20]; (4) emission of aerosol particulates by volcanic eruptions [21], rebutted by [22]; (5) reduced solar activity [23]; (6) effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol in controlling emissions of chlorofluorocarbons [24]; (7) a lower-than-predicted increase in methane concentration [24]; (8) a decrease in stratospheric water vapor concentration [25]; (9) strengthened Pacific trade winds [26] (previously, [27] had attributed weaker Pacific trade winds to anthropogenic global warming); (10) stadium waves in tropical Pacific circulation [28]; (11) coincidence [29]; (12) aerosol particulates from pine-trees [30]; (13) natural variability [31-32]; (14) cooler night-time temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere [33]; (15) predictions by those models that allowed for the possibility of a pause in global warming [34-35]; (16) the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [36-38]; (17) the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation [39]; (18) global dimming following the global brightening of 1983-2001 [40]; (19) relative frequencies of distinct el Niño types [41]; (20) surface cooling in the equatorial Pacific [42]; (21) Pacific cooling amplified by Atlantic warming [43]; (22) a combination of factors, including ENSO variability, solar decline and stratospheric aerosols [44]; (23) underestimated anthropogenic aerosol forcing [45]; (24) a new form of multidecadal variability distinct from but related to the ocean oscillations [46]; and (25) failure to initialize most models in order to conform with observation, particularly of oceanic conditions [47].

Finally, though the ARGO buoys measure ocean temperature change directly, before publication the temperature change is converted into zettajoules of ocean heat content change, which make the change seem larger. Converting the ocean heat content change back to temperature change is highly revealing. It shows how little change has really been measured. The increase in ocean heat content over the 94 ARGO months September 2005 to June 2013 was 10 x 1022 J = 100 ZJ (Fig. 6).

Monckton jan 2014 6

Figure 6. Ocean heat content change, 1957-2013, from NODC Ocean Climate Laboratory: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT.

Conversion: 650 million km3 x 4 MJ per tonne per Kelvin: each cubic meter is 1.033 tonnes. Then:

100 ZJ increase in ohc               100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 J

To raise                                        650,000,000,000,000,000 m3

x 1.033 te m–3                              671,450,000,000,000,000 te

x 4,000,000 J te                2,685,800,000,000,000,000,000,000 J per Kelvin

 

Then 100,000 / 2,685,800 = 0.037233 K in 94 months is equivalent to 0.0475 K per decade. Accordingly, even on the quite extreme NODC ocean heat content record, the change in mean ocean temperature in the upper 2000 m in recent decades has been less than 0.5 K per century equivalent.

References

  1. RSS (2014) Satellite-derived monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomaly dataset: www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt. Accessed 1 July 2014
  1. UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) (2014) Satellite MSU monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt. Accessed 1 July 2014
  1. NCDC, 2014, National Climatic Data Center monthly global mean land and ocean surface temperature anomalies, 1880-2013,ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat. Accessed 1 July 2014
  1. Morice, CP, Kennedy JJ, Rayner N, Jones PD (2012) Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 data set. J. Geophys Res 117:D08101. doi:10.1029/2011JD017187
  1. GISS, 2014, Goddard Institute for Space Studies monthly global mean land and sea surface temperature anomalies, 1880-2014, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt. Accessed 1 July 2014
  1. McKitrick RR (2014) HAC-robust measurement of the duration of a trendless subsample in a global climate time series. Open J Stat 4:527-535
  1. Meehl GA, Arblaster JM, Fasullo JT et al (2011) Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods. Nat Clim Change 1: 360–364
  1. Balmaseda MA, Trenberth KE, Källen E (2013) Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content. Geophys Res Lett 40:175401759
  1. Trenberth KE, Fasullo JT, Balmaseda MA (2014) Earth’s energy imbalance. J Clim 27:3129-3144
  1. Chen X, Tung KK (2014) Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration. Science 345: 897–903
  1. Wunsch C, Heimbach P (2014) Bidecadal thermal changes in the abyssal ocean. J Phys Oceanol 44: 2013–2030
  1. Cheng L, Zhu J (2014) Uncertainties of the ocean heat content estimation induced by insufficient vertical resolution of historical ocean subsurface observations. J Atm Oceanic Tech 31: 1383–1396
  1. Cheng L, Zhu J, Cowley R et al (2014a) Time, probe type, and temperature variable bias corrections to historical expendable bathythermograph observations. J Atm Oceanic Tech 31: 1793–1825
  1. Cheng L, Zheng F, Zhu J (2014b) Distinctive ocean interior changes during the recent climate hiatus. Geophys Res Lett submitted
  1. Cowtan K, Way RG (2014) Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Quart J R Meteot Soc  140: 1934-1944
  1. Fyfe JC, Gillet NP, Zwiers FW (2013) Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nat Clim Change 3: 767-769
  1. Chung CE, Cha H, Vilma T et al (2013) On the possibilities to use atmospheric reanalyses to evaluate the warming structure of the Arctic. Atmos Chem Phys 13: 11209-11219
  1. Kaufmann RK, Kauppi H, Stock JH (2011) Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 11790-11793
  1. Kühn T, Partanen A-I, Laakso A et al(2014) Climate impacts of changing aerosol emissions since 1996. Geophys ResLett 41: 4711-4718
  1. Neely RR, Toon OB, Solomon S et al(2013) Recent anthropogenic increases in SO2 from Asia have minimal impact on stratospheric aerosol. Geophys Res Lett 40. doi: 10.1002/grl.50263
  1. Santer BD, Bonfils C, Painter JF et al (2014) Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature. Nat Geosci 7:185-189
  1. Haywood J, Jones A, Jones GS (2014) The impact of volcanic eruptions in the period 2000-2013 on global mean temperature trends evaluated in the HadGEM2-ES climate model. Atmos Sci Lett 15: 92-96
  1. Stauning P (2014) Reduced solar activity disguises global temperature rise, Atmos Clim Sci 4: 60-63
  1. Estrada F, Perron P, Martinez-Lopez B (2013) Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes. Nat Geosci 6: 1050–1055
  1. Solomon S, Rosenlof KH, Portmann RW et al(2010) Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes of global warming. Science 327: 1219-1223
  1. England MH, McGregor S, Spence P et al (2014) Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nat Clim Change 4: 222-227
  1. Vecchi ga, Soden BJ, Wittenberg AT,  et al (2006) Weakening of tropical Pacific atmospheric circulation due to anthropogenic forcing. Nature 441: 73-76.
  1. Glaze Wyatt M, Curry JA (2013) Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century. Clim Dyn 42: 2763-2782
  1. Schmidt GA, Shindell DT, Tsigaridis K (2014) Reconciling warming trends. Nat Geosci 7(158-160). doi: 10.1038/ngeo2105
  1. Ehn M, Thornton JA, Kleist E,  et al (2014) A large source of low-volatility secondary organic aerosol. Nature 506:476-479
  1. Watanabe M, Shiogama H, Tatebe H et al (2014) Contribution of natural decadal variability to global warming acceleration and hiatus. Nat Clim Change 4: 893–897
  1. Lovejoy S (2014) Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause. Geophys Res Lett 41:4704-47
  1. Sillmann, J, Donat MG, Fyfe JC et al (2014) Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming. Environ Res Lett 9. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064023
  1. Risbey J, Lewandowsky S, Langlais C,et al (2014) Nat Clim Change 4:835-840
  1. Guemas V, Doblas-Reyes FJ, Andreu-Burillo I et al (2013) Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade. Nat Clim Change 3:649-653
  1. Maher N, Sen Gupta A, England MH (2014) Drivers of decadal hiatus periods in the 20th and 21st centuries. Geophys Res Lett 41:5978-5986
  1. Trenberth KE, Fasullo JT, Branstator G et al (2014) Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming. Nat Clim Change 4: 911–916
  1. Dong L, Zhou T (2014) The formation of the recent cooling in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and the associated climate impacts: a competition of global warming, IPO  and AMO. J Geophys Res doi: 10.1002/2013JD021395
  1. Schleussner CF, Runge J, Lehmann J, et al (2014) The role of the North Atlantic overturning and deep ocean for multi-decadal global-mean-temperature variability. Earth Sys Dyn 5:103-115
  1. Rahimzadeh F, Sanchez-Lorenzo A, Hamedi M,  et al (2014) New evidence on the dimming/brightening phenomenon and decreasing diurnal temperature range in Iran (1961-2009). Int J Climatol doi: 10.1002/joc.4107
  1. Banholzer S, Donner S (2014) The influence of different El Nino types on global average temperature. Geophys Res Lett 41:2093–2099
  1. Kosaka Y, Xie SP (2013) Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature 501: 403–40
  1. McGregor S, Timmermann A, Stuecker MF, England MH, Merrifield M, Jin FF, Chikamoto Y (2014) Recent Walker circulation strengthening and Pacific cooling amplified by Atlantic warming. Nature Clim. Change 4:888-892. doi: 10.1039/nclimate2330
  1. Huber M, Knutti R (2014) Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled. Nat Geosci 7: 651–656
  1. Hansen J, Sato M, Kharecha PK, et al(2011) Earth’s energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem Phys 11:13421-13449.
  1. Maclas D, Stips A, Garcia-Gorriz E (2014) Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record. Plos One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107222
  1. Meehl, GA, Teng H (2014) CMIP5 multi-model hindcasts for the mid-1970s shift and early 200s hiatus and predictions for 2016-2035. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41(5):17y11-1716

#

Related Links: 

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’

Eco-Activists Warn 2014 Could Be Hottest Year On Record – Satellites Disagree

‘Hottest Year’ Update: NASA & NOAA ignore satellite data which reveal 2014 ‘well below’ hottest claims

Even ignoring satellite data Year-to-date ‘record’ temps are 0.21C *below* climate model projections

New paper finds excuse #66 for the ‘pause’: There’s no pause if you look at only at the warmest & coldest day of the year – Published in Environmental Research Letters

2014 might be 0.01C warmer than 2010!

No Record Temperatures According To Satellites – BBC put up a deliberately apocalyptic picture while telling us the world is on course for the warmest year on record. What they failed to tell us was that the more accurate satellites, which monitor atmospheric temperatures over nearly all of the globe, say no such thing.  Figures from UAH are out for November, and these show a drop from the  October anomaly of 0.27C to 0.33C. This means that at the end of November, this year is only in a tie for 3rd with 2005, and well below the record year of 1998, and 2010.

Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’

Study using dozens of models Claims: ‘Warming Climate Can Be Slowed in a Decade’ by cutting CO2

Climate Depot Note: If future temps continue to flatline or even cool, warmists can claim climate policy is responsible. They are already doing it! See: It’s Official — Temperature ‘Pause’ Caused By Climate Policies?! Medieval witchcraft lives! UK Energy Minister: Government policies ‘may have slowed down global warming’ 

AP’s Seth Borenstein publishes pure propaganda: Climate change has made Earth ‘hotter, weirder…downright wilder’

Climate Depot’s Morano comment: ‘AP’s Borenstein can be trusted to shill for UN’s climate summit in Lima Peru, which I will be attending and speaking at. Borenstein relies on Michael Oppenheimer (who is the UN scientists on the payroll of Hollywood stars) and Climategate’s Michael Mann. Borenstein ignores tide gauges on sea level  showing deceleration of sea level rise and ignores satellite temperatures which show the Earth in an 18 year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’ of global warming. Borenstein tortures data in order to claim more weather extremes. We are currently at or near historic lows in tornadoes and hurricanes. Even droughts are on long term declines and floods show no trend. We know not to expect more from Borenstein.’ See: ‘Long sad history of AP reporter Seth Borenstein’s woeful global warming reporting’

Sea level claims debunked here:

Extreme weather claims debunked here:

Greenland ice claims debunked here:

Antarctica ice claims debunked here:

Overpopulation claims debunked here:

Analysis: Why ’90% of the missing heat’ cannot be hiding in the oceans

 

Share:

Marc Morano

Marc Morano

335 Responses

      1. Name-calling certainly is a convincing argument. However, if you understood anything about real science, you would realize that when a theory is falsified, i.e., the direct relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature is dis-proven, the entire theory must be scrapped and research started from scratch until a new theory is developed. “Scientists” do not throw excuses at the wall to see which one sticks. Unless they are political scientists, that is. But after all, it’s about “system change, not climate change”, isn’t it?

        1. “The failed theory I am referring to is AGW”

          Anthropogenic global warming is the theory that humans are warming the planet by producing greenhouse gasses like CO₂.

          Do you think that humans do not produce CO₂ or do you think that CO₂ does not warm planets?

  2. Marc the discussion needs to move on from discussing a pause to discussing the cooling trend because in fact we have had 11 years of cooling see

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend

    see my post

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

    for details and cooling forecasts. This shows that the late 20th century rise is simply the rise to the peak of the millennial cycle which peaked in the RSS series at 2003.6 give or take a couple of weeks no doubt.
    This corresponds to the peak in the solar activity driver seen at about 1991 in Fig 14 of the linked post. There is about a 12 year lag between the driver peak and the RSS peak. The lag will vary according to the climate metric used and the region under consideration.
    For convenience Skeptics and Republicans might wish to celebrate the anniversary of peak heat which I calculate as 4th July 2003 at about 4pm.
    .

    1. I am fully aware of the games and the misguided way you use statistical packages, but continuing forward with your suggestion, why not take the break point to be 1997.6? You will see we are now the break point in the two linear regressions is in the middle of the range, but more importantly you maximize the length of the cooling period and also, more importantly, the rate of cooling is also maximized. So much so, that the warming trend for those first 17 years is about par with the cooling trend in past 17 years. NOTE, I’m talking about the trend in two disjointed periods. Thus an argument for suggesting that the “forcing” that occurred in those first 17 years of warming has now inverted to a cooling forcing.

      Beginning of the next “Little Ice Age?”

      or,

      Beginning of the next “Ice Age?”

      Take a look at this thought provoking ice expansion, go here: Antarctic Ice Extent .

      I know its early days yet, but where are those looney thermohaline theorists now, the Arctic Ice Extent is growing, not melting, and it seems that any thermohaline affect will come from Antarctica and not the Arctic. Physics and science is a game of numbers, the force with the bigger numbers is the driving force. It doesn’t get bigger than Antarctica, that’s the place to watch. When she starts moving, everything else is going to follow, and for Man’s affect on the world? Well, when it comes to Antarctica, come the next Ice Age, we are in a ****load of trouble. Think about all of Canada under ice a kilometre thick (lots of AGWers there!), including 1/2 of the USA, and where are all the reasonable people going to go? I say reasonable people, all the AGWers will be in their Bermuda shorts frozen to death. As for the rest of us, I hope Mexico cleans up its act soon, otherwise the cartels will be the least of their problems! LOL.

      As for the Europeans…. well during the last Little Ice Age the Black Plague took out more than half the population, no thanks to upper echelon elites whom like today support global warming, and of course the Catholic Church does too now, come to think of it, hey Pope Francis are you going to do the same thing as your Pope colleges did during the Little Ice Age by sending priests up to the Alps to throw holy water on the glaciers to stop them from advancing down on your churches? No kidding gents, the Pope’s during that time thought the glaciers were possessed! Can’t be any worse than this Pope now who thinks that global warming is Man’s Sin!!

      Seems like to me, in 1,000 years we have not evolved much. Catholic Church is still being run by nincompoop, lunatics running around believing that there are witches
      around warming the Earth, and of course these witches should be burnt at the stake (hmmm, sounds a bit counter productive no?), and of course the so called intelligentsia among our leaders want to punish sinful Man, with support and help from the Church, by extorting more taxes from the masses. My dear brethren, when you start seeing the Dominicans roaming around….RUN….RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!

      Boy oh boy, what do we have to look forward to! Glaciers, Church doctrine, crippling taxes, the odd Inquisition or two or three or… , plagues, starvation, dropping sea levels (hey I’m going to be able to walk to Africa from Europe!), and cold cold temperature!

      Well if it comes to this, life will be miserable, yes indeed. But I will get one satisfaction, I will be watching all those AGWers in Bermuda shorts freezing into human Popsicles! And because after all this, the average IQ of Humanity will increase, I think Mankind will have a very good, prosperous and promising future! BOO-YA!!

      BRING ON THE ICE AGE!

      1. I use 2003.6 date because the 1998 and 2010 peaks are out of trend highs caused by El Ninos .Further the 2003 peak fits well with the 12 year lag estimated between the solar driver peak at about 1991 and the corresponding temperature peak – see the post linked in my first comment.
        There I also estimate the depths of the next LIA at about 2600.

        1. I kind of understood that already. I didn’t mean to take issue with you sir. I just thought that by opening my comment with that idea of the greater cooling trend it allowed me greater poetic license the for the rest of my comment.

          These days you can’t take the AGW issue to seriously, for if you do, you risk giving these poor scientists the status they do not deserve. Personally, I see AGW as a fraud. When scientists use data dishonestly to win funding and grants, it is fraud.

          As for your work Dr. Norman, as a scientist myself, I show you no ill respect, but honour your view and applaud your sound reasoning.

          Happy New Year.

        2. Just an after thought.

          As for the timing of the next LIA, there is data to predict a LIA from anywhere starting now to into the future of hundreds of years. I would like to raise just some thoughts on this:
          – The Ice Age’s we have been experiencing now for the last some 1 million years is only a short term thing. Basically it has only been occurring during our Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic Era, before this until the Mesozoic Era (65 million years ago) there has been a progressive warming the further you go back. Now these Ice Ages we have had in the Quaternary Period have had irregular Interglacial warming periods. In fact, our present warming period of some nearly 15,000 years is arguable the longest one yet. So we are over due for an IA, not just a LIA.
          Now since during this time Man was to evolve from the Apes, how is it if Evolution is supposed to work in concert with Nature to enable species to function better in its environs, how is it that Apes where to loose a tail, come out of the trees, loose their hair, walk up right in shorter, not longer grass, hunt meat when there was lesser animals, all during a time when the Earth was cooling and staying cold for over 100 thousand years at a time, and only warming for some times a few thousand if not hundreds of years a time?

          – Since during the Mesozoic the climate was warming the further we go back in time until the the next cooling, about 150 million years, and the one before that another 150 millions before that, the Ice Ages are not that regular, for any planetary orbital dynamic effects. As for solar radiation effects, that I believe is not strong enough for a Snowball Earth thesis. I would like to throw out there to everyone an idea. I think instead of doing what I consider to be stupid toy tricks on Mars with Tonka Trucks, why not do some real science. Like we have been taking ice cores from Antarctic, why not send an ice core platform to Mars’ pole. Core a sample of ice, and see if there is a correlation with Earth’s ice cores. Why? I am seriously of the opinion, that things like our IA (not LIA), might be due to something grander than just our Sun doing hick-ups.

          Just some food for thought.

          NB. the evolution issue for me is a big question mark, just something to raise the shackles of the Darwinists, LOL. the idea of ice coring on Mars I think has a lot of merit, for if we find a correlation between Mars and Earth, you can write off, FOREVER, all this stupid nonsense of Sinful Man with his climate. And also get rid of a lot of useless and stupid scientists and departments!

          I know I have opened a hornet’s nest here…. so be it. Its time well over due.

    1. The technical note is much extended to take detailed account of the fallback position of the climate extremists to the effect that the missing heat has gone into hiding in the ocean and will come out and say Boo! one day. Otherwise, the key facts about global temperature change have not altered much: there is nothing special either about today’s absolute temperature or about the rate of change over the past few decades.

      1. “… the fallback position of the climate extremists to the effect that the missing heat has gone into hiding in the ocean and will come out and say Boo! one day. ”

        Anthropomorphic humor is a nice touch.

        But a real scientist would have cited the basis for the thinking, so what you’ve done is merely accentuate the actual lack of science in the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ rhetoric.

        1. Considerable detail on the reasons why the missing heat has not gone into hiding in the oceans is provided in the technical note appended to the head posting. The references there provide still further detail.

        1. Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese State Science Funding Council, Vol. 60, #1: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, 2008 Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, doi:10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2, January 8. The paper exposes numerous elementary but fundamental errors in the general circulation models and demonstrates that it is the errors that lead to predictions of rapid manmade warming. Take away the errors and only a small warming will result.

          1. A too clever by half attempt to change the topic.

            As noted by m, the post by Lord Monckon has no impact in moving us forward in scientific understanding.

            And doesnt it seem a bit odd that the paper cited now wasn’t used in the “head posting”? If it were relevant, ….

            1. Don’t be childish. The paper is of course mentioned in the head posting, where its relevance is explained. To sneer at it without even reading it is the action of a troll. To say it is irrelevant without even reading it is the action of a small-minded climate Communist paid to disrupt these threads.

              1. “The paper is of course mentioned in the head posting,…”

                This paper, right?:

                “Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese State Science Funding Council, Vol. 60, #1: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, 2008 Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, doi:10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2”

                Where, exactly?

                I’ve done a phrase search for the title, and the date. Not showing in the “head posting”.

                    1. The evidence is in the head posting, which plainly refers to a then-forthcoming, now-published paper in the peer-reviewed literature. Since “Robert” has presumed to comment on the head posting, one had assumed (unwisely) that he had read it. Now one must assume that he is either incapable of reading or unwilling to make any contribution other than those that a paid troll for the climate-Communist viewpoint would make. Either way, the science is moving on, and global temperature isn’t.

                    4. “..feeble-minded.”

                      Read and quoted the vague ref in the text. No cite in the list of references.

                      You could have quoted the text; you could query Lord Monckton why he did not cite his own paper.

                    5. Don’t be childishly disingenuous. By now you know from previous answers by me that I was not in after position to cite the paper in the Science Bulletin till it had been allocated to an issue of the journal. You also know I have now cited it. Grow up.

                    6. “..and is demonstrated in a major peer-reviewed paper published this month in the Orient’s leading science journal.”

                      Then, oddly not mentioned again nor cited in refs….

                    8. Hmmm. We’re not discussing reading the paper; we’re discussing the fact the paper isn’t cited.

                    10. Don’t be infantile. My paper in Science Bulletin could not be cited till it had been allocated to an issue of the journal, but it has since been both published and cited up thread. Grow up and get someone to read it to you.

                    12. Don’t be pathetic. The Chinese Science Bulletin follows its own procedure, which (unusually) includes the pre-allocation of accepted papers to specific issues of the journal. For the record, it is not a journal of the AAS, but the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese State Science Funding Council. Try to be a little more grown-up. And try to get someone to read and explain the paper to you, before you continue to be snide about it.

                    13. ” For the record, it is not a journal of the AAS…”

                      Not the point. Lord M wasn’t writing for the Chinese journal here.

                      Protocols don’t vary that much from field to field; style manual to style manual. What is consistantly is that works cited in the body are in the ref list.

                      AND there was no cite in the refs list after being used to support a point in the body.

                    14. Don’t be infantile. The paper could not be named or cited in references till it had been allocated to an issue. And you now have the reference upthread. Grow up.

                    15. “…paper could not be named or cited …”

                      So Lord M ‘ couldn’t cite a paper he wrote …’

                      Odd claim. One wonders….

                    18. “..paid troll for the climate-Communist viewpoint ..”

                      Learned that technique on the playground, eh?

                    19. Don’t be infantile. Sneering snidely from the sidelines without revealing your identity is the cravn hallmark of a paid climate-Communist troll. Meanwhile, temperature continues to fail to rise at anything like the predicted rate, or (on the RSS dataset for the past 18 years 3 months) at all. Grow up and accept that, since the predictions are not in accord with observation, they are wrong.

                    23. The science, of course, is in the head posting, and in the continuing failure of global temperature to respond at even half the predicted rate.

                    24. “…they are wrong.”

                      Hmm, some blogs say so.

                      Yet the rest of the world is working – albeit too slowly- on solving the issues the science is pointing out is happening.

                      And here? Name calling. Insulting. Obfuscation. False skepticism.

                    25. Don’t be childish. The head posting provides detailed, irrefutable evidence that the models’ predictions were wrong, and materially so. Indeed, IPCC has itself tacitly accepted this bu all but halving its medium-term predictions.

                      If by refusing to face facts and by making childish, futile points that only a paid troll for climate Communism would make, you will be – and have been called out. If you want to be taken seriously, post under your first name and surname, as the head pisting does.

                      And don’t whine about being insulted. A contributor too cowardly to distinguish himself by name from the millions of other Roberts in the world cannot legitimately claim to have been insulted. Grow up.

                    26. “If you have no scientific points to make,…”

                      “..the cravn[sic] hallmark of a paid climate-Communist troll. ”

                      Sciencey…

                    27. “…the predicted rate, …”

                      Odd the IPCC would give a “the”.

                      Not so odd that the m and Gus show doesn’t cite the original source.

                    28. Don’t be childish. Read my earlier answers, and read IPCC (1990). You need go no further than the summary. Also, the caption on Fig. 2 explains all, and I have already explained that point. So grow up and contribute usefully, or stop wasting your time and your climate-Communist paymasters’ money.

                    29. So, how many days now have you been obfuscation?

                      You made some claims and you’ve been unwilling to quote what you claim is support.

                      For days now….

                    30. Don’t be silly. Read the head posting. Read the references. Read the paper in the Chinese Science Bulletin. More reading, less sneering. Grow up.

                    34. Don’t be childish. At the time when the head posting was published, the journal had accepted the paper mentioned in the head posting but had not allocated it formally to an issue. It was not “in press” till the allocation was made.

                    36. Don’t be childish. The paper had been accepted but not allocated to an issue of the journal at the time of the head posting. It was forthcoming but not in press.

                    37. Don’t be babyishly repetitive. Grown-up researchers may mention the fact that a forthcoming paper has been accepted for publication, but may not cite it as ‘in press’ till it has been allocated to an issue. As soon as it was thus allocated (indeed, it is now published in the Science Bulletin), I cited it up thread, as You know full well. Grow up and read it.

        1. Don’t be childish. Of course the head posting is over your head: and you are a paid climate-Communist troll anyway, so you are not likely to be willing to consider the substantial quantity of evidence in the head posting.

            1. Don’t be childish. If you were more interested in the truth than in advancing totalitarianism, you wouldn’t have made so many futile, ignorant and malicious comments here. Only a paid troll would bother to maintain the large quantity and low quality of your contributions.

  6. “Surface temperatures in 2013 compared to the 1981-2010 average. NOAA map by Dan Pisut, NOAA Environmental Visualization Lab, based on Merged Land and Ocean Surface Temperature data from the National Climatic Data Center. Adapted from Plate 2.1(c) in State of the Climate in 2013.
    Surface temperatures in 2013 were warmer than average across most of the world. Notably, Australia had its warmest year since national records began in 1910. Far-western Asia and the far-western Pacific Ocean also saw record-high average temperatures. At the same time, a swath of central North America, the Pacific Ocean west of South America and along the equator, and a few other isolated locations saw cooler-than-average temperatures.
    The impacts of temperature on people, agricultural activities, and natural ecosystem are more often related to extreme temperature events than they are to changes in long-term averages, so the 2013 State of the Climate report also included an analysis of worldwide temperature extremes since 1950.
    The year 2013 ranked within the top 10 years for the frequency of warm days and in the bottom 10 years for the frequency of cool days. More warm days than average occurred over large parts of Europe, central and east Asia, and Australia, while fewer warm days than average were observed over central North America. Regional and global average time series of these statistics suggest that the increase in warm day frequency and decrease in cool night frequency is part of a long-term trend.
    Change over time

    Multiple long-term records of Earth’s average temperature (different colored lines) since the late nineteenth century show a similar pattern: year to year variability combined with a long-term warming trend. The lines shows how far above or below the 1981–2010 average (dashed line at zero) the combined land and ocean temperature has been each year since 1880. Graph adapted from Figure 2.1, in BAMS State of the Climate in 2013.
    Globally-averaged surface temperature for 2013 was 0.36 – 0.38° Fahrenheit above the 1981–2010 average, placing it among the top 10 warmest years since record-keeping began.”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2013.php

    1. NOAA has consistently over-egged the climate pudding. Until it and GISS and HadCRUT decided artificially to increase the slope of recent warming in the middle of last year, the mean of all five principal datasets showed no warming for 13 years 4 months. What is not disputable is that – whatever the measure – the rate of global warming is about half of what the IPCC predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990. And that means there is not yet any real problem with the climate.

      1. We certainly wouldn’t want to egg you on, but we’ve seen nothing in your or the poster’s writings that would encourage us to rely on your analysis of the adjustments done by the Climate Research Unit, NOAA, or GISS.

        1. All my temperature analyses are readily replicable. I do not propose to analyze the adjustments – merely to demonstrate their effect in artificially introducing an increase in the warming rate that is not reflected in the satellite datasets.

            1. If Robert can explain why so many adjustments have been made to the terrestrial datasets, an just about always with the effect of steepening the originally-measured warming rate, let him do so.

              1. And we’d like to see a thorough explanation of why we should accept your claims over what something on the order of 97% of the science points toward.

                1. Don’t be infantile. Read legates et al., 2013, Sci. Educ., on how the imagined ‘consensus’ is 0.5%, not 97.1%. This result has already been mentioned up thread. And there is no research at all on how many scientists accept the continuous upward revisions of the 20th-century warming trend.

                  1. “And there is no research …”

                    Here is an excellent opportunity for some original work , wouldn’t you say?

                    Bring some statistical evidence supporting all the claims of an up swelling of contrarian beliefs and all the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ acolytes would hoist the author on their shoulders …

        1. My annual report on global temperature trends shown in the five principal global-temperature datasets will show that global warming taken as the average of the five datasets to the end of 2013, as determined from the datasets as they stood at the beginning of 2014, was considerably less than the average of the five datasets to the end of 2013 as determined from the datasets as they stand at the beginning of 2015. There has been a lot of tampering with the three terrestrial datasets, pushing them away from the satellite datasets.

      3. ” the rate of global warming is about half of what the IPCC predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990. ”

        “Observed changes in global mean surface air temperature since 1950 (from three major databases, as anomalies relative to 1961–1990) are shown in Figure 1.4. As in the prior assessments, global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with o bservations over climate timescales (Section 9.4). Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short timescale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments. The 19902012 data have been shown to be consistent with the FAR projections (IPCC, 1990), and not consistent with zero trend from 1990, even in the presence of substantial natural variability. ” page 12 AR5 wg1 chapter 1

            1. Robert can check the temperature trends and predictions for himself, if he is not too busy writing snide and unconstructive comments here. Much of the basis for the head posting has already been peer reviewed and published in Energy and Environment for September 2014.

          2. “Robert is here repeating himself.”

            Because we see claims w no citations

            Could be a strawman argunent. The evasions, repeated and repeated, point to use of rhetoric rather than scientific observation and analysis.

    2. The rate of global warming since 1990 is about half of what was then predicted. The models have consistently made predictions that have turned out to be wildly exaggerated. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong, as Dr Feynman used to say. The models disagree with experiment. They’re wrong. The reasons why they are wrong will be explained in a forthcoming paper in a leading science journal.

  7. “http://testclimate.wpengine.com/2014/10/27/its-official-temperature-pause-caused-by-climate-policies-uk-energy-minister-government-policies-may-have-slowed-down-global-warming/”

    How does that work then, if CO2 concentration has continued to rise unabated ?

    The UK’s Liberal Dimocrat Climate Change Minister hasn’t a clue about science, which makes it easier for him to believe what he wants.

  9. Keep it simple: There is no need to measure the ocean temperatures throughout. Measure the ocean levels, do it as accurate as you can, and you’ll know all there is to know about how much the ocean has warmed on average. After all, glacial melt (at the polar caps in particular) is still not adding all that much water to the oceans.

    1. Ah, but the sea level rise is… not uniform throughout the world’s oceans. For example, doi:10.5194/osd-11-2029-2014 finds, using multi-mission satellite sea-level records, that “the positive global sea level rise trend is almost entirely due to an apparent huge bulge located in the Western equatorial Pacific region” while “all other areas have experienced a drop in altimetric sea levels from 1993-2010, including most of the East and West coasts of North and South America.”
      So, how should we interpret this result?

    1. A yet another silly “he-said-she-said,” based on drawing curves without any in-depth analysis.

      Take an accepted data set, e.g., HadCRUT4. Apply a proper HAC-robust trend variant estimator. And the answer that comes out is … no observable trend in global surface temperature for 19 years and in the lower troposphere for between 16 and 26 years (doi:10.4236/ojs.2014.47050).

            1. Read the paper. Don’t be lazy. For the explanation and derivation of the Vogelsang-Franses estimator see doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.02.004. For other uses of HAC estimators in “climatology” see doi:10.1002/env.2294.

                1. The papers, three suggested, explain the issues and applications. If you lack competence to study the papers, there’s no point wasting our breath on further discussion.

                    1. “The confidence interval must be heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation (HAC) robust. While the IPCC itself typically uses a simple AR1 process to model residuals, there is empirical evidence that the error processes exhibit higher-order autocorrelation and long term persistence. Tests of the series used herein all showed evidence of higher than first-order autocorrelation. Hence the estimator must be valid for longer memory structures.”
                      … there you are. Happy?

                    2. “… there you are. Happy?”

                      Now, in your own words, explain why you picked that section and how it supports your claim. You also need to examine the criticism of the paper and discuss where that is, in your view, incorrect.

                      You know, just like you were writing a paper.

                    3. I’ve written papers enough in my life. But this is neither the right place, nor the right time for it. Don’t push it.

                      Suffice to say that serious mathematical considerations (see the paper itself and references therein, if you want to understand it better), when applied to a highly regarded global temperature data set, show no trend in global temperatures extending for 19 years now.

                      If you question this result, *you* are free to publish a paper that would take the opposite view, but I don’t insist that you should do so here, because this is not the right venue for it. For now, the result stands unchallenged. The method of data analysis applied is robust and well argued.

                    4. “I’ve written papers enough in my life. But this is neither the right place, nor the right time for it. Don’t push it.”

                      Then you shouldn’t have a problem explaining….

                      Sounds more like we’re having a discussion w someone whose understanding doesn’t go beyond the talking points offered up by a small range of ‘anything but my tailpipe’ blogs and is looking for a less ignominious exit from the thread.

                    5. Sounds like *you* are not interested in understanding anything, because if you were, you’d simply read the paper and learn something useful from it; your only real goal being incessant and vapid argument about … words. Emacs chatterbox could do better.

                    7. “>>> Your reticence in offering up a substantive case says a lot. <<<"

                      Substantive case? No global warming in 19 years, in spite of atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing at the same time: case closed. CO2 is irrelevant in terms of global climate, not only at present day concentrations, but, as geology tells us, at concentrations way higher than today too. Other natural mechanisms are far more powerful.

                      Every real scientist, including climate scientists, knows this.
                      The lack of global warming for 19 years now is similar to the negative outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887), in which they failed to detect the luminiferous aether. 18 years later, special theory of relativity was born.

                      But here, nature itself carried out the experiment for us. Like the theory of luminiferous aether, CAGW is a failed theory. It is destined for the ash heap of history alongside with its proponents and defenders.

                    8. “No global warming in 19 years, ..”

                      Lord M, nor you have actally brought sufficiently strong enough support for that claim.

                      But don’t feel too bad; as part of the misinformation crew, you’re only spouting the line that fits to your concerns

                      Climate change. Why some of us won’t believe that it’s getting hotter

                      “…a more sophisticated theory suggests that it’s not about the facts at all. It’s really a debate about the implications, disguised as a debate about the facts. Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay, a researcher and associate professor in neuroscience at Duke University in North Carolina find that belief in temperature forecasts is correlated with beliefs about government regulation and what those forecasts would mean for government regulation.”
                      http://m.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-why-some-of-us-wont-believe-its-getting-hotter-20150110-12koa1.html

                    9. “>>> … nor you have actually brought sufficiently strong enough support for that claim… <<<"

                      Of course, I have. doi:10.4236/ojs.2014.47050

                      is my argument. You can wave your hands, pout and stamp your feet as much as you want, pretend, indulge in hysterics, but this is a solid, scientific argument. There is nothing you can do about it.

                      As you clearly know nothing of science, of science methodology, scientific method, mathematics, &c., I don't expect you to understand the full implication of what the paper discusses and how it goes about its result, but the result is irrevocable: no "global warming" for 19 years now. The CO2 theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fallacy debunked by this simple observation and Nature's own experiment.

                      Climate change: why some of us stubbornly believe that it's getting hotter in spite of evidence to the contrary? Answer: because they invested themselves up to their ears in this fraud.

                    10. “As you clearly know nothing of science, of science methodology, scientific method, mathematics, &c.,…”

                      Ah, tromping along in m’s boots….

                    11. obviously empirical evidence isn’t good enough, i think you’re looking for some ad hominems for an emotional victory, you won’t get that either though, obfuscation is relative to intelligence, you Brian griffin are a psudeo-intellectual, sticking your uneducated nose into topics where you have no authority to defend your political brainwashing because you can’t believe you had your heart and mind shat on by a bunch of scam artists.
                      you were intellectually fucked, and you are now being fucked by your indoctrination, just admit you were fooled bro, and let it go.

                    13. “>>> So this ONE paper negates all of the papers cited in IPCC report… <<<"

                      As I had explained to you above, the paper doesn't negate anything, because IPCC WG1 AR5 Report fully acknowledges the existence of what they term "the pause" or "the hiatus". The paper merely calculates its duration using the mathematical definition of a trend, arriving at 19 years.

                      And, yes, the existence of such a 19-year long "hiatus" discredits the CAGW theory, in the same way that the Michelson-Morley experiment discredited the idea of luminiferous aether, since the experimenters were unable to detect the Earth's movement with respect to it. Until then, physicists firmly "believed" in the existence of the aether, how else could light propagate through space? Lord Kelvin, who was considered the #1 physicist at the time constructed a special machine, which was displayed in the foyer of the Physics Department at the University of Edinburgh, and which was meant to simulate the aether's mechanical properties. As the theory became discredited after 1905, the machine was eventually removed.

                      Science, you see, is not a democracy, in which the veracity of propositions is decided by a majority vote. Or a volume of papers published. As Feynman had put it: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

                      CAGW does not agree with the experiment.

                    14. “…IPCC WG1 AR5 Report fully acknowledges the existence of what they term “the pause” or “the hiatus”. ”

                      Both you and m make the same claim.

                      Both you and m won’t quote and cite where they read that.

                      Maybe because it isn’t in the report but is some blog claim?

                    15. “>>> Both you and m make the same claim. << warming hiatus,” you’ll find it mentioned on pages 61-63 (it’s the box), but also 769-772, 798 and 909.

                    16. And in the next post Gus will explain how his snark becomes just another data point in showing his reticence and obfuscation. …

                    17. “Eschew Obfuscation” is my life’s motto. Nothing could be clearer than the instructions provided above. To download the report, in case you don’t know how, go to

                      http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

                      Under “Quick Links” you’ll find “Full Repor (375MB)”. Click on it to download the PDF. You can also read the report on-line at the same location.

                    18. ” “Eschew Obfuscation” ”
                      “Nothing could be clearer than the instructions provided above. ”

                      Then exact quote shouldn’t be an issue; if your or m’s claims ate true.

                      Yet, still obfuscation and rhetoric….

                      How many days now?

                    19. “>>> Then exact quote… <<<"

                      Here it is:

                      "… the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it." (Box TS.3)

                      Also see:

                      "Based on model results there is limited confidence in the predictability of yearly to decadal averages of temperature both for the global average and for some geographical regions. Multi-model results for precipitation indicate a generally low predictability. Short-term climate projection is also limited by the uncertainty in projections of natural forcing." (TS.6.4)

                    20. So how many days of obfuscation?

                      And note the ” “… ”

                      Actually there are several sentences in that ” “… ”

                      The first of which says :

                      Box TS.3 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
                      ” The observed GMST has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Box TS.3, Figure 1a, c). ”

                      So neither Gus or m are being intellectually honest in their claim of “no warming”.
                      Which helps explain the tandem refusal to quote and cite.

                      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

                      And for a bit of fun, use Gus’ quoted material with the opening “… for a search. The quote is from a host of blogs….

                      Yet another example of the level of intellect feeding this ‘skepicism’.

                    21. “>>> A much smaller increasing linear trend… <<<"

                      Let us see, how much smaller: In the same paragraph they state the trend between 1998 and 2012 being 0.04C/decade, compared to the trend between 1951 and 2012 being 0.11C/decade. In the process, they skip the cooling period that followed the 1950s. But a typical yearly variation is easily 0.6C, for example, between 1988 and 1989, so 0.04C is a mere 7% of it. Or, in other words, we can say that the decadal rise was 0.04 +/- 0.60, the error being easily 15 times larger than the claimed quantity. Why don't IPCC authors quote the uncertainty with this result? It is them who is dishonest.

                      Of course, within this error bound, the puny 0.04/decade is indistinguishable from zero. But they don't tell you this, do they?

                      This is exactly where McKitrick's paper, doi:10.4236/ojs.2014.47050, is vastly superior in how it goes about this and how it computes the duration of "no-trend."

                    22. “This is exactly where McKitrick’s paper, ..”

                      You have been shown to be intellectually dishonest by your selective quoting and obfuscation.

                      Why should we even bother responding?

                    23. “>>> You have been shown to be intellectually dishonest by your selective quoting and obfuscation. <<<"

                      The meaning of the word "hiatus," used by IPCC: "A pause or break in continuity in a sequence or activity" (Oxford Dictionary). It's their, IPCC's term, not mine.
                      Why is IPCC dishonest by not providing error bounds on quoted quantities? Because they don't want their readers to see that 0.04C/decade is, in fact, 0.04 +/- 0.6 C/decade. In other words, it is indistinguishable from zero. Which is what we all know and what McKitrick's paper demonstrates using proper statistical methods.
                      NO GLOBAL WARMING TREND IN 19 YEARS.
                      Live with it.
                      Why wouldn't you be happy about it? If you fear "global warming" so much, it should give you no end of pleasure to learn that … there isn't any!

                    25. “… IPCC WG1 AR5 Report fully acknowledges…”

                      Then, yet again, should be no problem quoting & citing…

                      But we’re heading into the fifth day neither Gus or m will.

                      Wonder why….

                    26. “The CO2 theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fallacy ..”

                      What is the best resource describing the “..CO2 theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming..” ?

                    27. …applied to a highly regarded global temperature data set,… ”

                      “..a… global temperature data set, .”

                      As does Lord Monckton, so does Gus. Cherrypicking.

                      Pick a paper that meet a preconcieved conclusion. Then argue that paper outweighs the much larger body of observations and analysis.

                    28. If you think that having a lot of garbage published makes for science, you are very much mistaken. This is not how science is done. And scientists, by and large, know the difference very well. In this case though, the paper that we’re talking about does not contradict “the much larger body of observation.” Most climate scientists agree that what they call “hiatus” is real, IPCC agrees with it too, and what the paper in question really does is to apply sophisticated statistical analysis methodology to evaluate how long the hiatus has been here. The answer is 19 years.

                      Live with it.

                    29. “…the paper that we’re talking about does not contradict “the much larger body of observation.””

                      So, what is the author arguing then?

                    30. Surprising as it may seem to you, not all scientific papers are about “arguing.” Oftentimes they refine our knowledge instead. Read the paper, unless your background is insufficient to understand it, which I suspect is the case, because you don’t strike me like someone who has good background in mathematics and physical sciences.

                      Anyhow, the paper defines, in a very insightful way the meaning of the term “trend,” providing a sophisticated and well argued mathematical definition of it, then applies it to a known global temperature data set of recognized quality and finds that the trend was absent from the data for 19 years now.

                      In layman terms, there has been no “global warming” for 19 years.

                    31. “… about “arguing.” ”

                      As in ‘ arguing one’s case’. You are trying harder with rhetoric than science.

                    32. “In layman terms, there has been no “global warming” for 19 years.”

                      About the only people who do believe that talking point….

                    33. “In layman terms, there has been no “global warming” for 19 years.”‘

                      ‘Laymen’ are about the only ones believing that….

                    34. Well….maybe you better read Dr.Fyfes Sept 2013 Nature Climate change article again. I have given it to you before. Is Dr.Fyfe considered a layman ?

                      Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

                      John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers

                      “The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero”.

                      –

                      This “stasis” as described in the American Physical Society framing docs ( SecII The Stasis http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf has continued . despite a 61% emissions increase since 1990.
                      –
                      You really are a hostile little “Denier” aren’t you ?

                    35. Thanks for bringing the only paper the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ blogs claim as proof to a well researched topic.

                      Perhaps it is time to show us what in that paper is so overwhelming as to negate the whole body of research.

                      Actually, if the paper says what you claim for it, there is a section where the author explains why his findings are robust in spite of all the other evidence.

                    36. “Pick a paper that meet a preconcieved conclusion. Then argue that paper outweighs the much larger body of observations and analysis.”

                      Gets ‘ anything but my tailpipe’ translated to

                      “If you think that having a lot of garbage published…”

                    37. “IPCC agrees with it too, ”
                      Not trying to get all Clintony, but you’d do well to show your “it” is the same as what IPCC uses.

  12. Well this is funny (and embarasing)… A quote from RSS page:

    “Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).

    Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increasesin greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.

    The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.”

    It seems you misread something or more precisely a lot of things…

    1. Over the past 35 years the troposphere has warmed at about half the rate predicted by the models. Over the past 18 years 3 months (note the difference in timescale) the troposphere has not warmed at all, according to the RSS data.

      The spatial pattern of warming is “consistent with” not only manmade but also natural warming. The question of attribution is not straightforward. Of 11,944 papers on climate and related topics published over the 21 years 1991-2001, only 64 (0.5%) actually said most of the warming since 1950 was caused by Man.

      It seems van der Basa has not read the head posting closely enough.

      1. “… half the rate predicted by the models.”

        “Observed changes in global mean surface air temperature since 1950 (from three major databases, as anomalies relative to 1961–1990) are shown in Figure 1.4. As in the prior assessments, global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with o bservations over climate timescales (Section 9.4). Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short timescale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments. The 19902012 data have been shown to be consistent with the FAR projections (IPCC, 1990), and not consistent with zero trend from 1990, even in the presence of substantial natural variability. ” page 12 AR5 wg1 chapter 1

        1. In 1990 the IPCC used the phrase “we predict”, and added that it had “substantial confidence” that the models were correctly representing the principal features of the climate system. The predictions were explicit: there would be 1 [0.7, 1.5] K warming to 2025. These values – assuming a linear trend since 1990 – are shown in the orange region of fig. 2. The outturn, as the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets, is the bright blue straight line. It shows warming at half the rate predicted in 1990, and well below even the least warming rate predicted by the models. The outturn, therefore, is not “consistent with” the predictions by the IPCC in 1990.

                  1. “Don’t be childish…”

                    If it is as you , or Lord Monckton, says there would be no problem – and indeed would behoove one – to cite the exact information.

                    4. “. …paid to troll here.”

                      I imagine there will be a long pause whilst you dig up the evidence to support that claim.

                      And it seems the Lord M has cried libel for less…..

                    5. Don’t be childish. One cannot libel an anonymous contributor such as Robert, who snipes and sneers from behind a cowardly cloak of anonymity, and only bothers to disrupt these threads because he is handsomely paid by one of the many climate-Communist factions to do so.

                    7. “…and only bothers to disrupt these threads because he is handsomely paid by one of the many climate-Communist factions to do so.”

                      Oh, so sciencey….

                    8. “Robert” argues from the preconceived position of the climate Communists, and persists in making snide and futile comments – containing remarkably little science – from behind a cowardly cloak of anonymity. These are the hallmarks of the paid climate-Communist troll. Meanwhile, the climate Communists are beginning to learn that their attempt to politicize even science itself has failed. The world has been warming at a rate less than half of what the IPCC predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990, and also well below what it predicted in 2007. It has now had to revise its medium-term projections drastically downward – and they are still excessive.

                    9. ” climate Communists, ”

                      “futile comments”

                      “paid climate-Communist troll. ”

                      And then note m has decided his original talking point was inaccurate and is now trying to silently modify it…

                    10. Don’t be childish. The points I make in these comments do not np modify the argument in the head posting: they reinforce it. And don’t whine. If you stop behaving like a childish, paid climate-Communist troll, and if you find the cojones to admit who you are, and if you start behaving like an adult and stop lying, you will no longer be treated with the profound disrespect you now richly deserve.

                      Stop whining. Learn some science. Take a course in intellectual honesty. And, above all, grow up.

                    12. So there it is Robert. You’ve finally got the gist of Munckhin’s thinking all rolled up in a little ball. Now deal with it you childish, paid climate-Communist troll! /s

                    17. Hmmmm!!!!

                      Murdering people who say things one wishes weren’t true! Why does that sound familiar?

                      …another of Luboš’ obsessions:

                      motls.blogspot.com/2015/01/there-is-nothing-extreme-about-anti.html

                      He seemed fairly reasonable at first, until I started posting science, at which point I quickly found myself censored.

                      Interesting.

                    18. He didn’t start well trying to make The Enlightenment equivalent to “became secular”….

                    19. PS. I notice that zlop has been infecting his blog-posts over there, so at least maybe there’s still some justice in the world.

                    20. lol! I actually love ZLop. She’s like a sleeper-cell…

                      The call is coming from inside the house!!!

                    21. if nothing else i’d bet you’re living on our taxes with your political bias >o> you don’t know what you’re talking about and it’s funny.

                    22. “…i’d bet you’re living on our taxes with your political bias…”

                      Maybe just taking the Lord’s insults and namecalling as gospel….

          1. With the usual suspects noting it in glaring headlines.

            It’s a wonder you have time to post what with all the ‘ anything but my tailpipe ‘ blog to read…

            1. Quoting from the abstract of doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044018:

              “It is demonstrated that even with historical SSTs as a boundary condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements. It is also shown that the results from CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs are similar to findings from CMIP3 coupled GCMs.”

                1. According to IPCC ( 2007), rapid upper-troposphere warming in the tropics is the hallmark of man made global warming. However, it is not observed in all satellite and radiosonde datasets. Ergo, such warming as has taken place since 1950 is largely not anthropogenic,

                    1. It is not for me to educate the ineducable. See Santer (2003), for instance, and then see that paper cited in IPCC (2007). Do your own homework for once, and don’t be childishly lazy.

                    2. “It is not for me to educate the ineducable. ”

                      So, more obfuscation.

                      No quote from “IPCC (2007)”.

                      Wonder why…..

                    4. “Search IPCC 2007 “.

                      ” childish.”

                      Your claim. Days now you haven’t been able to support it

                    5. Don’t be babyish. If you are not aware of the well established discrepancy between models’ predictions of the existence of the tropical mid-troposphere hot spot, or of its near-total absence in reality, read Santer 2003 and the mention of that paper inIPCC 2007, then check any database of mid-tropospheric and surface tropical temperatures. Grow up and learn some elements of the science you foolishly say there is a 86% consensus about.

                    6. “… well established discrepancy between models’ predictions of the existence of the tropical mid-troposphere hot spot,…”

                      If it is ” well established”, then citing the best available information shouldn’t be a problem.

                      So; quote and cite.

                    7. Don’t be childish. The data for tropical tropospheric and surface temperatures are available. Check the data yourself against the predictions in Santer (2003 and IPCC 2007. That is how science is done.

                    8. “That is how science is done.”

                      By not honoring a simple request for a quote?

                      By using insults rather than supporting your claim?

                      More like a bully on the playground.

                    12. Amen, brother! Time these climate-Communist trolls did a little of their own scientific research. The more the learned, the less they’d be happy about the Party Line.

                    13. “climate-Communist trolls did a little of their own scientific research”?

                      Similar to Hilary and the techno-experts, they are deployed to disrupt and vandalize perception.

                      “I have this group of young techno-experts who are out there engaging on websites and we’re putting all of our young Arabic-speaking diplomats out, so that they are talking about our values.”

                    1. Don’t be childish. You say the paper cited by Gus does not say what he has cited. So cite what you say the paper said.

                    3. Don’t be childishly silly. IPCC (2007) plainly stated, following Santer (2003)’ that tropical mid- to upper- troposphere warming was a signal of man made warming. As the abstract of the paper cited by Gus plainly states, measurements do not bear this out.

                      Furthermore, as the head posting shows, IPCC (2013) falsely claimed that it’s temperature projections in all its Assessment Reports had been borne out by events, when – as the head posting shows – the predictions in IPCC (1990, 2007) were very greatly exaggerated.

                      IPCC (2013) also falsely stated that it’s projections had not been intended to be predictions. However, the central predictions in IPCC (1009) are plainly preceded by the words “We predict …”.

                    4. .” IPCC (2007) plainly stated, ..”

                      Then quoting and citing should be no problem.

                      But, instead; days of obfuscation.

                      And continued whinging….

                    6. READ READ READ IDIOT, YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY READ THESE COMMENTS, DO YOU NEED IT IN LAYMANS TERMS? SHOULD SOMEONE CUT UP YOUR HOTDOG FOR YOU AS WELL!? WHY DON’T YOU BALLS UP AND THROW DOWN SOME DATA THAT DOESN’T GET CRUSHED LIKE A FIFTH GRADERS MAGIC DECK ON TOURNAMENT DAY? THAT’S BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T SAID SHIT, YOU DON’T EVEN HAVE A FULL DECK TO PLAY WITH BRU.
                      0/10 PAID SHILL.

                    8. ah the troglodyte comes out of his shell >o> you really haven’t though and that frustration is mounted from reading your responses throughout the comments section

                    10. the reason it’s so easy to come to a boil about this is that people are being robbed of fourtunes on these bunk taxes based on faulty science and the numbers prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. this crap gets pushed in the schools so they get people like you emotionally invested in a false paradigm so you’ll go and find any way you can to defend the advertised notions, like it were your faith, and in a way it is, but it’s a fraud and one that really hurts human progress and the betterment of the environment for real as our planetary genetics and water supply gets more and more polluted with real toxins, and altered genomes. air pollution is real in urban environments where pollution is heavy like new york, or L.A. and planes that fly over and spray various chemicals or have dangerous exhaust chemicals in the fuel burnoff but ma made global warming is a myth, it’s clear from the data that theses are in line with the changes in the behavior of the sun, and may even reflect meta behavior like those of the black hole at the center of the galaxy, i speculate that this is so given the fractal nature of the universe but to what degree i cannot say whole heartedly, but i implore you good sir relinquish this dogmatic myth you cling to as it is nothing but a sham.

                    13. Don’t be childish. Read the extract from the abstract cited by Gus, which plainly indicates that the models’ predictions of upper-troposphere warming at thrice the surface warming rate have proven false, just as the head posting proves the current and former predictions of the IPCC false.

      2. “Of 11,944 papers on climate and related topics published over the 21 years 1991-2001…”

        Well, that’s rather random… seems to have nothing to do w the thread….

          2. 2 days ago
            ” “>>> … seems to have nothing to do with the thread… <<<"
            On the contrary. It's quite central to the thread and the whole issue."

            No explanation…

            Wonder why…

  13. “The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.”

    So in other words, it’s cherry-picked.

    1. No, the start date is not cherry-picked. It is calculated. If I add 2 and 2 and get 4, I have not cherry-picked the answer: I have calculated it.

      The fact that one of the five major datasets shows no global warming for 18 years 3 months is a powerful indication that the predictions of the models were grossly exaggerated.

      1. “… one of the five major datasets shows no global warming… ”

        That’s some serious cherrypicking…

        “Multiple long-term records of Earth’s average temperature (different colored lines) since the late nineteenth century show a similar pattern: year to year variability combined with a long-term warming trend. The lines shows how far above or below the 1981–2010 average (dashed line at zero) the combined land and ocean temperature has been each year since 1880. Graph adapted from Figure 2.1, in BAMS State of the Climate in 2013.
        Globally-averaged surface temperature for 2013 was 0.36 – 0.38° Fahrenheit above the 1981–2010 average, placing it among the top 10 warmest years since record-keeping began.”
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2013.php

        1. For at least two-thirds of the past 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age, global temperatures have been warmer – sometimes considerably warmer – than the present. Nor is there anything special about the warming rate – except that it is so small compared with prediction, given the continuing increases in CO2 emissions worldwide.

        2. “>>> since record-keeping began <<<"

          But truly global, reliable, uniformly calibrated and complete records are available from 1979 only, the beginning of satellite measurements. And 1979 was a particularly cold time: remember the Ice Age panic at the time. So why should the very moderate warming since then be considered in any way unusual or undesirable? It is as natural as the cooling, from 1960 to 1980, that preceded it.

          And how do the numbers compare with 1930s? It was a very hot time, likely warmer than at present in the US and in Russia, this much we can say, where data is at all available.

          Given the natural scatter of global temperature satellite readings, which can vary by 0.6C or more within a few months, and by as much as 1.3C within a few years, and thus the high error that any such computed averages are loaded with, temperatures registered in 2013 and in 2014 were no different from those registered throughout the past decade and a half. Which is what is meant when we say there has been no trend for the past 19 years, as proper statistical analysis of the data tells us (doi:10.4236/ojs.2014.47050).

          Comparing with the 1930s, nearly all 1930s high temperature records, registered in the US, survive to this day, unchallenged.

          1. “And 1979 was a particularly cold time: remember the Ice Age panic at the time.”

            No, I dont remember the ” panic”. Please point to where it is documented.

    2. “”The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.”

      You just can’t make this stuff up. This is the sort of thing that is its own best parody.

  14. If one is to calculate slopes, assuming linearity of temperature evolution, one should as well evaluate errors, both in the slope and in the offset. Too often we are presented with numbers without the +/- bit, which, as every physicist knows, is as important as the number itself. For example, to say that the “net downward radiation flux imbalance” over the 1985-1999 period was 0.34W/m^2 (doi:10.1002/2014GL060962) is quite misleading, as one should really say that it was 0.34 +/- 0.67 W/m^2. The latter tells us that it could just as well be zero or even negative, since the error in the estimate is nearly twice as large as the estimated number itself.

    And, of course, we should do better than just apply linear regression to the data, especially since the data is clearly not linear. A better fit could be produced, for example, by Fourier analysis of the data, which also reveals the data’s cyclic character (doi:10.1007/s11434-010-4204-2).

  15. The funny thing is that climate models greatly exaggerate whatever tropospheric warming has been observed with satellite-born microwave sounding measurements (doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044018), and the real question, to which we do not have an answer, is whether whatever tropospheric warming was observed in the past 35 years was significantly different from warming that occurred during similar periods, e.g., in the 1930s.

    The baseline for the interpretation of satellite measurements are the early 1980s, because the measurements commenced in 1979 only. We don’t really have truly global and uniformly calibrated temperature data for earlier times. Ground stations data are all garbage in this context: not accurate enough, not uniformly calibrated, loaded with systematic errors, incomplete, &c. But the 1970s was a particularly cold time. It was, so it appears, a global dip in temperatures, so much so, scientists talked of the imminent ice age at the time. Why then should we be puzzled or shocked by the observed global temperature recovery in years that followed?

    Linear regression is a poor fit for the global temperature data between 1979 and today. The data was mostly flat, though undulating, between 1979 and 1997. Then it jumped rapidly between 1997 and 2003. Then it stayed level again ever since. It really looks more like arctan than a gradual linear rise.

    It is clear that the ocean has been involved all the time. The super El Nino of 1998 was a most profound event. The flatness of global temperature after 2003 tells us clearly that CO2 is pretty much irrelevant as a temperature driver, compared to far more powerful factors: ocean oscillations and solar activity (doi:10.1360/972013-1089, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50458).

    1. “It was, so it appears, a global dip in temperatures, so much so, scientists talked of the imminent ice age at the time.”

      Not really. The concern at that time was that aerosols would continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, leading to cooling. Still, only a small percentage of climate studies predicted this outcome…

      “A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008).”

      There wasn’t a consensus at that time on which direction climate was heading, but you have 4 – 1 saying ‘warming’. It turns out, they were all right. If you look at the trends before and after the passing of the Clean Air Act, there’s a sharp uptick in warming after it passed, as aerosols reduced. So it would seem they were right to be concerned about aerosol’s causing cooling, since their predictions were based on increasing aerosols and there was no reason to expect a reversal. They were also right that the underlying trend was warming.

      1. “>>> If you look at the trends before and after the passing of the Clean Air Act, there’s a sharp uptick in warming after it passed, as aerosols reduced. <<<"

        It really is nonsense. "Clean Air Act" was only adopted in the US and it had no effect whatsoever on global climate and global atmospheric pollution. Regarding temperatures after 1979… Well, let's have a look, for example, at

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

        And the really interesting thing is that… there was no real warming after 1979 at least until 1995. Then there was a rapid change, associated with the Super-El-Nino of 1998 and within about five years, the climate system switched to another plateau, that continues to this day.

        There never really was a continuous "warming." It was a rapid switch between two stable states.

        And this is brilliantly explained in two recently published papers by Douglass and Knox, doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.057 and doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.058, "The Sun is the Climate Pacemaker," parts I and II.

  17. The data indicates that global warming not only continues unabated but has accelerated in the 20th Century. Several studies find that the planetary energy imbalance is between 0.5 and 1.0W/m² in recent years –

    “Combining satellite data, atmospheric reanalyses, and climate model simulations, variability in the net downward radiative flux imbalance at the top of Earth’s atmosphere (N) is reconstructed and linked to recent climate change. Over the 1985–1999 period mean N (0.34 ± 0.67 Wm−2) is lower than for the 2000–2012 period (0.62 ± 0.43 Wm−2, uncertainties at 90% confidence level) despite the slower rate of surface temperature rise since 2000.”

    Allan, R. P., C. Liu, N. G. Loeb, M. D. Palmer, M. Roberts, D. Smith, and P.-L. Vidale (2014), Changes in global net radiative imbalance 1985–2012, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 5588–5597, doi:10.1002/2014GL060962.

    “For the 2000s… the total energy imbalance implied by ORAS4 is 0.91 ± 0.10W/m² “

    Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Magdalena A. Balmaseda, 2014: Earth’s Energy Imbalance. J. Climate, 27, 3129–3144.

    “We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”

    Loeb, N. G., J. M. Lyman, G. C. Johnson, R. P. Allan, D. R. Doelling, T. Wong, B. J. Soden, and G. L. Stephens (2012), Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty, Nat. Geosci., 5, 110–113, doi:10.1038/ngeo1375.

    “Argo era observed planetary energy imbalances are 0.70W/m² in 2003-2008 and 0.59W/m² in 2005-2010.”

    Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuc ann (2011), Earth’s energy imbalance and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11,13,421–13,449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011.

    1. “The data indicates that global warming not only continues unabated …”

      I wonder if the Lord M. would do a CD/WUWT ‘paper’ showing us why all those papers are, in their opinion, wrong….

      Or maybe m, or Gus, or ….

      1. Don’t be dishonest. The paper cited by Icarus does not say global warming continues unabated. It says there has been increase in the imagined radiative imbalance. Yet there has not been a corresponding increase in the warming rate.

            1. Don’t be childish. If the climate were warming at the puny rate claimed by NOAA, the warming would be sufficient to nullify any ‘radiative imbalance’. That is what warming does. It would really be helpful if Robert were to do less trolling an learn more elementary thermodynamics,.

                1. indeed @disqus_QOcJ4Yma9K:disqus it’s clear you can’t read the data, and you’re just making biased assumptions based on what little you can make heads or tails of. thank you for your expose’ Lord @monckton:disqus

                  1. “.. just making biased assumptions..”

                    Climate change. Why some of us won’t believe that it’s getting hotter

                    “…a more sophisticated theory suggests that it’s not about the facts at all. It’s really a debate about the implications, disguised as a debate about the facts. Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay, a researcher and associate professor in neuroscience at Duke University in North Carolina find that belief in temperature forecasts is correlated with beliefs about government regulation and what those forecasts would mean for government regulation.”
                    http://m.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-why-some-of-us-wont-believe-its-getting-hotter-20150110-12koa1.html

                    1. how many hack articles do you need to see shot down with scientific data before you realie that magazine clippings are inadmissable as evidence in the scientific world, it’s not journalism, it’s science based on facts not conjecture based on loose observations and poorly thought out rhetoric meant to encourage more people to read it and become emotionally invested unto ignorance like you have so clearly become.

                    3. good sir there are more than ehough facts cited here in my favor, it is you who fail to assert your claim of man made global warming which you never actually can with real data.

                    4. “…it’s science based on facts ..”

                      Have you brought any?

                      Hence the “hack article”.

                    5. “>>> Why some of us won’t believe that it’s getting hotter. <<<"
                      Funny thing. He (user "Robert") quoted exactly the same excerpt in another place on another occasion. He is just a propagandist. He has no idea about science, no mathematics background, knows nothing of physics. Just prattles enviro-fascist propaganda nonsense.
                      But here is an answer to his question. The reason why "some of us won't believe that it's getting hotter" is because it isn't! Proper statistical analysis of surface temperature data shows there has been NO TREND FOR 19 YEARS. Even the IPCC WG1 AR5 Report admits global warming has stopped. They *choose* to call it "hiatus." But, of course, it isn't a "hiatus" at all. It is, in fact, a maximum. There is going to be a temperature drop on the other side of it.
                      That'll be fun to watch.

                    6. ” . . . .There is going to be a temperature drop on the other side of it.”

                      Oh, no, Mr bill!!!! It’s the ice age that the ‘skeptics’ claimed the scientists claimed in the 70s….

                    7. “>>> It’s the ice age…<<<"

                      No, there won't be any ice age. Climate fluctuates. Always. At times it gets warmer, then it gets cooler. It is natural for it to do so. It does so mostly in response to the Sun. See the two epochal papers published recently by Douglas and Knox, "The Sun is the Climate Pacemaker," parts I and II, doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.057 and doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2014.10.058.

                      Also see doi:10.1007/s11434-010-4204-2.

                    9. “>>> Cited by wuwt <<<"

                      So? Is this bad? Does this make the papers any less valid? Is the analysis provided in the papers flawed? Is the insight gained less profound?

                      The authors are specialists in non-linear signal analysis. Their insight is extremely valuable. It tells us something very interesting about the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon and explains the rapid global temperature change that took place around the super-El-Nino of 1998. Also, it explains the temperature plateaux before and after the event–the latter continuing to this day.

                    11. “>>> The sun. The sun. <<<"
                      I'm glad you agree. The sun is indeed the primary driver of climate on earth, as is evidenced by a huge body of geophysical literature, which you can peruse at

                    12. Might want to read the play linked to..

                      It isn’t agreement..

                      Guess I should have done /sarc…

                    13. “>>> It isn’t agreement. <<<"

                      I'm sure, it is. You only say so to avoid being lynched by your comrades.

                      Just between us, pssst, don't tell your comrades… anybody who ignores the impact that the sun has on the Earth's climate, frankly, is an idiot… or a crook. There's too much direct evidence linking solar activity with powerful climate phenomena, including, of course, ENSO. This paper, doi:10.1360/972013-1089 (2014), finds irrefutable evidence of the connection between solar activity and global temperatures. This paper, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2013.03.010 (2013), finds a connection between solar activity and thunderstorm activity in Brazil, between 1951 and 2009. And this paper, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.02.019 (2011), finds the connection between solar activity and the flow of South American rivers. In this paper, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2014.11.004 (2015), the scientists find a connection between solar activity and Antarctic temperatures over the past 11,000 years. And in this paper, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2014.06.010 (2014), the authors find that the sun drives the monsoon rainfall in India. Of course, you understand how important monsoon rains are not just for India, but for all of south east Asia.

                      It's all recent stuff. And most telling.

                      There's plenty more, of course. Go to the Club du Soleil's page

                      http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html

                      if you're interested.

                    14. “…anybody who ignores the impact that the sun has on the Earth’s climate, frankly, is an idiot… or a crook. ”

                      Two talking points from the ‘ anything but my tailpipe’ blogs..

                    15. Yeah… whatever. I know you have to say this, otherwise your crazy comrades would lynch you. So, don’t tell them, for God’s sake, about this paper by Yin et al, doi:10.5194/cp-10-1803-2014 (2014), who discuss China’s climate over the past 700 years and find that “Eastern China temperatures varied with the solar activity, showing higher temperatures under stronger solar irradiation, which produced stronger summer monsoons. During Maunder, Dalton and 1900 sunspot minima, more severe drought events occurred, indicating a weakening of the summer monsoon when solar activity decreased on decadal timescales. On an interannual timescale, dry conditions in the study area prevailed under El Nino conditions, which is also supported by the spectrum analysis. Hence, our record illustrates the linkage of Asian summer monsoon precipitation to solar irradiation and ENSO: wetter conditions in the study area under stronger summer monsoon during warm periods, and vice versa.”

                    18. “>>> are you aware the Exxon/Mobil has paid many scientists to write peer reviewed papers that deny AGW is a fact? <<<"
                      Since AGW is not a fact, but a discredited theory, there is nothing there to deny. Also, as the papers you refer to are peer reviewed, what difference does it make who pays for their writing?
                      Are you aware that IPCC is staffed with Greenpeace activists and that Tom Steyer sank millions of dollars in support of enviro-fascist movements?

                    19. Yeah; AGW was discredited by some scientists who were paid $10,000 bucks or more by Exxon to discredit it.

                    25. “>>> First cite… Wuwt <<<"

                      So, you think that if WUWT mentions the paper, doi:10.1360/972013-1089, it somehow invalidates it? Or would you claim that WUWT has paid the paper's authors, who represent the Chinese Academy of Sciences, to lie? And the Academy wouldn't do anything about it?

                      Is the authors' use of wavelet and cross-correlation analysis technique flawed? Or inappropriate?

                      I actually found about this paper on Eurekalert in June. And I don't know when or where WUWT may have mentioned it. But why should this matter at all? What matters is the paper.

                      It also matters that it is a Chinese paper, written by researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Chinese decision makers, the leadership of the country, are quite likely to consult these and other authors on matters of climate, before sitting down to negotiations with our clowns. And they'll negotiate keeping in mind what *their* scientists would have told them on the matter.

                      As China is already a larger economy than the US, in PPP terms, as computed by OECD, it is to them rather than to the US that other countries will increasingly look up to on this and other issues.

                    26. “Or would you claim that WUWT has paid the paper’s authors, who represent the Chinese Academy of Sciences, to lie? ”

                      Strawman

                    27. “I actually found about this paper on …”

                      Perhaps. However, it is interesting that not only are all your talking points ‘ anything but my tailpipe’ blog derived, inevitably so are your sources.

                      Which sounds highly suspicious for a ‘skeptic’.

              2. “If the climate were warming at the puny rate claimed by NOAA, the warming would be sufficient to nullify any ‘radiative imbalance’. That is what warming does.”

                Not the part of the warming that results in phase changes, such as the melting of ice. That is what is known as latent heat instead of sensible heat.

                2. “>>> Not the part of the warming that results in phase changes <<<"

                  Indeed, but "Continuous monitoring of the polar regions by satellites has shown that sea ice extent (SIE) in the Antarctic has increased slightly since 1979." (DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062231; 8 January 2015)

                    1. Is this including or excluding ice that melts because of volcanic heat underneath it, as it does in Greenland and in the West Antarctica? Also, what was the condition in the 1930s? Wasn’t ice melting as vigorously as today at the time, or more even? Do you know that Greenland glaciers retreated more rapidly between 1900 and 1930 than in the past 15 years? Yet, clearly, there could not have been any human culpability in their melting in the early 20th century. There was nobody there at the time and not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make any difference.

                      And if they retreated back then for natural reasons, then why shouldn’t the current reason be natural too? Isn’t the sun shining any more? Are not Atlantic currents allowed to transfer equatorial heat to the Arctic, as they have always done?

                      Don’t you know that Russians regularly sailed along the Arctic ocean’s shores between the 1930s and 1950s, but they don’t do so today, because the passage is no longer clear? And do you know that old satellite photos from the 1960s, recently recovered, show huge holes in the Arctic ice, near the pole, hundreds of miles across. And the 60s was a cool time!

                    2. That is sea ice not total worldwide ice.

                      Since you are obviously grossly ignorant of this subject… Please illuminate us. Why do you have such a strong opinion about it?

                    6. No problem.

                      With the “see more,” the number of graphs and the different labeling of the graphs because of their different sources, it can be confusing.

                      I think that this set of graphs is useful to see what is going on, especially the difference between the changes in maximum and minimum extent and the differences between Arctic and Antarctic.

                    7. I’m not sure what the vertical axis values are on your charts, but – maximum sea ice volume since late 1970’s has been about 29,000 cubic km, while the volume of antarctic sea ice is almost 1,000 times larger – generally above 25,000,000 cubic km. So – if antarctic ice grew by 3% at the same time that arctic ice disappeared completely. there would still be a net gain in ice volume.

                    8. I apologize fro not including a caption.

                      “Maximum and minimum sea ice extent observed for Arctic and Antarctic, in million km2 (Data courtesy NSIDC).” from the article “Sea Ice Observations in Polar Regions: Evolution of Technologies in Remote Sensing”

                      “25,000,000 cubic km” That would be Antarctic land ice.

                      From the abstract for “Modeled Trends in Antarctic Sea Ice Thickness.”

                      “Unlike the rapid sea ice losses reported in the Arctic, satellite observations show an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration over recent decades. However, observations of decadal trends in Antarctic ice thickness, and hence ice volume, do not currently exist. In this study a model of the Southern Ocean and its sea ice, forced by atmospheric reanalyses, is used to assess 1992–2010 trends in ice thickness and volume. The model successfully reproduces observations of mean ice concentration, thickness, and drift, and decadal trends in ice concentration and drift, imparting some confidence in the hindcasted trends in ice thickness. The model suggests that overall Antarctic sea ice volume has increased by approximately 30 km3 yr−1 (0.4% yr−1) as an equal result of areal expansion (20 × 103 km2 yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1) and thickening (1.5 mm yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1). This ice volume increase is an order of magnitude smaller than the Arctic decrease, and about half the size of the increased freshwater supply from the Antarctic Ice Sheet.”

            2. From you, we get documentation from a reliable site.

              From Gus & m, we get days of rhetoric and obfuscation. Plus the insults, namecalling…

              Does make one wonder why such a difference in behavior.

              Thanks for the resources!

            3. the climate changes and temperatures rise and fall in natural succession.
              we did not do this, solar dictated geophysics did and always will, just wait untill global cooling, i guess that’ll be our fault too lol except that it’s been happening in cycles for all earth’s history >o> why doesn’t anyone look at that data and see that that where the global warming models fail, the natural planetary cycles coincide perfectly with the ongoing climate as it sits.
              seems rather politically biased to me

                1. what does anything but my tailpipe even mean? is this supposed to be an ad hominiem attack because if so man you must have never had your ass kicked, what a vaginal assault.

                2. to be fair though my “talking points” as if i structured my commentary like a fucking reporter, are based on real data, not like your fabricated hockey stick gore.

            4. Yea it’s warming all right, so much so the ice in the polar regions is increasing. Are you aware of the new icebreakers that are being built because of ice increases in the polar regions? You do know what they use icebreakers for don’t you?

    2. N = 0.34 +/- 0.67 W/m^2… Well, this means that zero is well within the error bound, doesn’t it? The other result quoted in your first citation says 0.62 +/- 0.43 W/m^2. The error here is nearly 70% of the quantity measured. Since we normally request three sigmas, to make sure, again, zero is entirely within the three sigma limit. The same goes for your result 0.50 +/- 0.43 W/m^2 (86% error). Your last citation does not even provide errors. All this data is… GARBAGE! Trenberth’s result of 0.91 +/- 0.10 W/m^2 is model-derived, therefore not trustworthy (read “fabricated”).
      Also, why would you expect the globe to be in “energy balance” at all times? This is impossible. The globe is always either in positive or negative energy balance, because the Earth is simply too large for the balance to be exactly zero everywhere at all times. As the globe’s temperature oscillates, from year to year, so does its energy balance. It varies all the time. But it *is* zero when averaged over the longer time interval, say, a decade or two.

        1. “>>> That’s called motivated reasoning. <<<"
          No, it's scientific reasoning: I know how to read scientific results and how to interpret error bounds reported, you don't.
          A scientist NEVER accepts any result that is not measured with adequate accuracy. A result produced by an unverified model is not even a science result. It is science fiction.

            1. “>>> Your dismissal… <<<"
              If the measurement is loaded with 70%, 86% or 200% error, it is not a good measurement and a paper that makes much ado out of such data, ignoring the size of the inaccuracy, is not a good paper.

              As is the case with cars, some science is shoddily designed, shoddily engineered, and shoddily built. You have quoted examples of it. Thank you.

      2. No, it means that confidence interval is too great to rule out random variability. The warming trend is real, the dataset is just too short for it it to be statistically significant, IE., a low enough confidence interval to rule out natural variability. The 30 year trend is statistically significant, and rules out internal variability.

        1. If you cannot see any trend on account of your data scatter being too large, then the only place where the alleged “warming” exists is in your imagination. The 30 year trend you refer to does not rule out natural variability at all. It coincides with the solar activity Grand Maximum that was present throughout much of the 20th century, but especially towards the end, and with powerful multi-decadal ocean oscillations.

            1. Global temperature varies all the time, it can drop from month-to-month by 0.3C or more, or rise by the same amount. Within the last two decades, we’ve seen variations within as much as 1C. These variations are mostly random, although trends that correspond to solar and oceanic drivers, also major volcanic eruptions, can be discerned.

              The same holds, of course, for any attempted measurements of the outgoing radiation. The satellites, usually a group, move over the globe and perform their measurements at various locations and at various times. They get different numbers, which are then weighed and averaged to produce some kind of a global characteristic. The size of the scatter is then used to calculate the +/- bit, the error. So, in a measurement result that says 0.34 +/- 0.67 W/m^2 the observed scatter is characterized by 0.67. This means that they got quite a number of… negative results and results smaller than 0.34, also a number of results larger than 0.34. The theory of measurement errors in this case tells us that every result within the bracket [0.34 – 0.67, 0.34 + 0.67] is plausible (though not equally plausible), including … zero itself.

              The number, 0.67, is referred to as “sigma.” Physicists performing measurements usually multiply this number by three, just to make sure. So, if your result is, say, 0.62 +/- 0.43, it is not three sigmas away from zero, therefore to a physicist this would be considered an unconvincing result.

  18. m says below, “No impact whatever unless it publishes in a reviewed journal.”

    As noted by m, the post by Lord Monckon has no impact in moving us forward in scientific understanding.

  19. Down below m claims
    “… decided artificially to increase the slope of recent warming in the middle of last year… ”

    And seems to have made a conscious choice to not support the claim.

    Anybody want to offer assistance?

  22. I wonder if m or Gus would explain why they think this is wrong:

    ” . . . .
    Climate “skeptics” apparently became convinced that the “hot spot” in Figure 9.1c was the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming the IPCC was referring to, rather than stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming.
    As he so often does, Monckton serves as a useful example of getting things wrong, claiming:
    . . . ”
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=340

  23. Claims are being made below about IPCC(2007).

    I wonder if someone would like to walk us through why they think there are errors .

    “The widespread change detected in temperature observations of the surface (Sections 9.4.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.3), free atmosphere (Section 9.4.4) and ocean (Section 9.5.1), together with consistent evidence of change in other parts of the climate system (Section 9.5), strengthens the conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the past several decades. This combined evidence, which is summarised in Table 9.4, is substantially stronger than the evidence that is available from observed changes in global surface temperature alone (Figure 3.6).

    The evidence from surface temperature observations is strong: The observed warming is highly significant relative to estimates of internal climate variability which, while obtained from models, are consistent with estimates obtained from both instrumental data and palaeoclimate reconstructions. It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that recent global warming is due to internal variability alone such as might arise from El Niño (Section 9.4.1). The widespread nature of the warming (Figures 3.9 and 9.6) reduces the possibility that the warming could have resulted from internal variability. No known mode of internal variability leads to such widespread, near universal warming as has been observed in the past few decades. Although modes of internal variability such as El Niño can lead to global average warming for limited periods of time, such warming is regionally variable, with some areas of cooling (Figures 3.27 and 3.28). In addition, palaeoclimatic evidence indicates that El Niño variability during the 20th century is not unusual relative to earlier periods (Section 9.3.3.2; Chapter 6). Palaeoclimatic evidence suggests that such a widespread warming has not been observed in the NH in at least the past 1.3 kyr (Osborn and Briffa, 2006), further strengthening the evidence that the recent warming is not due to natural internal variability. Moreover, the response to anthropogenic forcing is detectable on all continents individually except Antarctica, and in some sub-continental regions. Climate models only reproduce the observed 20th-century global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included (Figure 9.5).
    . . . .”
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

  24. “No global warming in 19 years, ..”

    A couple of commentors below keep making that claim; with obfuscation rather than actually bring evidence. Or just insulting and namecalling.

    They’re only spouting the line that fits to their concerns:

    Climate change. Why some of us won’t believe that it’s getting hotter

    “…a more sophisticated theory suggests that it’s not about the facts at all. It’s really a debate about the implications, disguised as a debate about the facts. Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay, a researcher and associate professor in neuroscience at Duke University in North Carolina find that belief in temperature forecasts is correlated with beliefs about government regulation and what those forecasts would mean for government regulation.”
    http://m.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-why-some-of-us-wont-believe-its-getting-hotter-20150110-12koa1.html

  25. Interesting discussion on false skepicism.

    Makes an interesting lens to view the ‘ no warming for X years meme here:

    Climate “skepticism”

    ”
    . . .

    So, while those who are “skeptical” of mainstream climate scientists continue to claim that their skepticism was based on a lack of trust of scientists, and not on an actual investigation of the evidence, I’m going to assume that they’re simply suspicious, and not actually skeptical.”
    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/climate-skepticism/#comments

  26. “And what if we aren’t dumb? What if we have evidence to support a cause-and-effect relationship? Let’s say you know how a particular chemical is harmful; for example, that it has been shown to interfere with cell function in laboratory mice. Then it might be reasonable to accept a lower statistical threshold when examining effects in people, because you already have reason to believe that the observed effect is not just chance.”

    Playing Dumb on Climate Change
    By NAOMI ORESKES
    nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/playing-dumb-on-climate-change.html

        1. We, the Serfs, are so dumb, Cannot possibly understand the mysteries of Global Warming. Just believe the experts and accept the future, as prescribed by the Georgia Guide Stones.

            1. You are OK with pretending to be a sheep, waiting to be harvested for mutton? — Then barbecued with Global Warming?

              “The Rothschilds & The Two World Wars – YouTube”

    2. So, now that you’ve given up on your dream of Global Warming as a method of redistributing wealth, you now turn to your fallback; that Mother Gaia is trying to poison us in retaliation for our sins.

      Well played!!

      1. ” Global Warming as a method of redistributing wealth, ”

        “Mother Gaia is trying to poison us ”

        Which ‘ anything but my tailpipe’ blog fed those talking points?

  29. Why is anyone listening to Marc ? , worse than Monckton he has zero scientific knowledge, he’s a bloody lawyer.
    He may as well pontificate on cancer research.

  31. icarus62, you sure spread your baloney around. We had this discussion on another website, and you had no answer for the past four warming periods of the Holocene interglacial covering the past 10,000 years. You can babble all you will, and you do, about a planetary energy imbalance, but when it just happens to be at the end of the coldest period of the past 10,000 years, the Little Ice Age, and when current warming is much lower than the four warming periods preceding it, and none of them is as warm as the Eemian interglacial of 125,000 years ago. what you bring to the discussion is a large dose of climate history ignorance. You are a natural climate change denier.

  32. It’s been a while since “they” released this, but it’s time to apologize to the Everly Brothers once again:

    Bye bye pause
    Bye bye hiatus
    Hello intense heat
    I think I’m-a gonna fry-y
    Bye bye pause
    Bye bye hiatus
    Hello intense heat
    I feel like I could fry
    Bye bye false pause goodbye

    There goes my con-game. Can’t fake it new.
    Temperature’s goin’ up and I’m sure blue.
    No more hiatus that the models failed to show.
    Goodbye to thinkin’ I’m the one in the know.

    Bye bye pause
    Bye bye hiatus
    Hello intense heat
    I think I’m-a gonna fry-y
    Bye bye pause
    Bye bye hiatus
    Hello intense heat
    I feel like I could fry
    Bye bye false pause goodbye

    I’m through denyin’ and bad-mouthin’ Al Gore,
    And telling lies on the internet and being a general bore
    And here’s the reason that I can’t be me
    My lovin’ pause is through with me

    Bye bye pause
    Bye bye hiatus
    Hello intense heat
    I think I’m-a gonna fry-y
    Bye bye pause
    Bye bye hiatus
    Hello intense heat
    I feel like I could fry
    Bye bye false pause goodbye

    Bye bye false pause goodbye
    Bye bye false pause goodbye

  34. That is not the globe, it is the lower troposphere as extrapolated from microwave emissions of the O2 molecule.

    If you are so ignorant of the climate system… why on Earth are you blogging about it as if you understand it?

    1. Monckton tell this long-haired climate-Communist to stop being so childish. You have plenty of good reasons for making an ass out of yourself, and it’s none of his business.

  37. “equivalent to 0.0475 K per decade”

    Argo’s specified accuracy is +-0.005C so this may be 0.0425C or 0,0525C.

    Consider that ocean temperature extremes range from below 0C in arctic regions to above 460C near hydrothermal vents. Local average ocean surface temperatures can vary from below 0C to above 30C. A surface temperature of 22C can drop to 4C with a depth of 1000m. Significant ocean volumes reside near the full ocean depth of 11,000m and constitute significant heat storage. Ocean currents can make rapid changes in local ocean temperatures.

  38. Funny thing there about that “Antarctica ice claims debunked here:” link.

    Claiming that something, like the shrinking Antarctic ice pack, has been debunked requires more than a link to a page that is trying to play word games with a scientific paper.

    It requires addressing the pair of satellites that NASA has monitoring the Antarctic ice sheets that have measured an overall lost 1350 Giga-tons (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tons of what used to be ice cap into the oceans, at a still continuing average rate of 70 Gt per year.

  39. Funny thing there about that “Greenland ice claims debunked here:” link.

    Claiming that something, like the shrinking Greenland ice sheet, has been debunked requires more than a link to a page that misstates in the title what the scientists actually said in order to claim that the edited comments are propaganda.

    It first requires using the actual statement. Anyone can make something up and then attack the made up comment.

    The actual statement was regarding the tripling of the “ice loss in the northeast region” of Greenland. In no universe is that “Greenland’s ice loss has tripled.”

    It also requires, seeing as you want to assert that all of Greenland is no longer losing ice, addressing the data that from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) passive microwave radiometer that is showing a continual loss of ice on Greenland.

  40. I have 1 question NOBODY in the “CO2 camp” has been able to answer: When you get rid of the CO2 what are you going to blame for all the plants (which is what feeds the population of Earth) dieing? How do the “CO2 camp” people explain that CO2 was MUCH higher in ancient times (ice core samples) compared to now and life did just fine?

  41. LOL THIS STUDY BROUGHT TO YOU BY BURN IT DOWN BIG OIL. FUCKING RETARDS!!! THIS SHIT IS SO OBVIOUS BY NOW ITS NOT EVEN FUNNY ANYMORE. WE ARE ALL CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING NOONE IS GOING TO STOP IT, SO ATLEAST DONT BE SO SMUG AND IGNORANT AS NOT TO ADMIT IT! SUCH SMALL MINDED DOLTS.

Leave a Reply

Support Climate Depot

Social Media

Facebook-f Youtube Twitter Instagram

Most Popular

Stay in the Know

Sign up to get updates.

Facebook Twitter Google-plus Pinterest

Copyright 2024 © All rights Reserved.