Here’s Lord Monckton posting at Watts Up With That?
The Great Pause has now persisted for 17 years 11 months. Indeed, to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global warming for 18 full years. Professor Ross McKitrick, however, has upped the ante with a new statistical paper to say there has been no global warming for 19 years.
Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a “climate crisis†caused by our past and present sins of emission.
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for at least 215 months.
This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I know Warmists love to call this “cherry picking”, and yammer about “why’d you pick that starting point? Huh? Huh? Huh?”, failing to realize (or acknowledge, because of their dogmatic religious fervor and typical dishonesty) that we are working backwards from the current time. So, don’t even go there, Warmists, you’ll just (continue to) beclown yourselves. HADCRUT shows now statistically significant warming for 19 years (that’s surface level). Dr. Ross McKittrick has the pause at 16-26 years looking at lower tropsophere data (see the link in the excerpt above). Matt Ridley notes, in a separate article that references Dr. McKittrick’s study
Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,†wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.â€
If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.â€
The current Pause most assuredly invalidates Warmist computer models, hence the propaganda that we’re doomed sometime in the next 40-60 years, and warming will start anytime now, as well as all their excuses as to why there has been no statistically significant warming for over 15+ years. When Warmists are not simply proclaiming there is no Pause because their computer models are more important that actual data.
Teach,
No.
And using the most debunked of Deniers (Monckton) doesn’t bolster your argument (such as it is).
Did you explore the RSS dataset? Over the past five years its recorded an average 0.014C increase per year. So it’s warmed over the past 5 years, but not over the past 17? Over the past 30 years its averaged 0.014C increase per year, but not for the past 17? Over the entire life of the RSS dataset (since 1979) its averaged a 0.013C increase per year.
The other datasets show even more warming than Monckton’s fav, RSS.
And what about those oceans? They are warming too. And the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland continue to lose volume, as does the Arctic sea ice.
Sorry, J, all those are within the margin for error, so it shows nothing. And again, if true, prove absolutely nothing as to the cause of such imaginary warming, which is the whole point, right? What about those oceans? So they’ve never warmed before? And that proves…what? “Antarctica, the Arctic, Greenland losing ice..” That’s funny- most data I’ve seen show they’re all gaining. But don’t forget we are in an inter-glacial period, where there should be loss. Greenland was named Greenland for a reason- The Vikings grew barley there. And I just came across an interesting article from Andrew Revkin of the NYT where he quotes several studies that show millions of years ago the Arctic average temperature was in the mid-70’s. (6-1-2006) In other words, much warmer than now. So, you still have nothing.
Even if that was the case, that is what is called “statistically insignificant”.
Seriously, 0.014?
What it demonstrates is the dishonesty of Monckton: He went back 5 years and said, whoops – it shows warming; how far back does he need to go to find no warming – 17 years.
For 30 years the datasets show a statistically significant increase of 0.014C per year, or 0.14C per decade or 1.4C per century.
A month ago, Teach, you were claiming that Deniers were not Denying warming. Now you are. What gives?
The Earth didn’t warm from 1940 to 1975, yet has warmed almost 0.1C per decade since 1900.
According to RSS, the Earth warmed 0.12C from 1999 to 2011. Yet from 1997 to 2014 Monckton finds no warming. It’s almost as if he chose a high starting point (most intense El Nino recorded) and the recent La Nina years. You are one intense El Nino year from being embarrassed.
Do you understand how the trend lines are created? Essentially, for any time interval the model calculates a trend line that equalizes the area under the curve (AUC) that is above and below the trend line.
Curiously, when you plot the total RSS dataset (1979 to 2014) and incorporate the trend line (0.125C per decade) and calculate the AUCs associated with the carefully selected “Monckton interval” (1996-2014) you find most of the AUC is ABOVE the trend line! The carefully selected “Monckton interval” is warmer than predicted by the entire RSS dataset!
Any curious Denier can repeat this exercise with all the datasets. For example, using the NOAA global dataset for the interval 1900 to 2014 demonstrates that the ENTIRE carefully selected “Monckton interval” AUC is ABOVE the trend line. What the ambitious self-promoter Load Monckton is inadvertently pointing out is that we’re in a decidedly warm interval.
I’m adding a new term to the Denier lexicon: “Monckton interval” (n) – any carefully selected partial dataset dishonestly used to support the users personal bias
This is fun. Pass it on.