Pause Hits 17 Years, 10 Months

I know, I know, Warmists will deny the actual data, because their computer models and overwrought rhetoric are more important

Via Climate Depot, here’s Christopher Monckton

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 17 years 10 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 more than half the entire satellite temperature record. Yet the lengthening Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. (big snip)

The 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 numerous more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, 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.

Obviously, Warmists will deny this. They just cannot accept scientific data when it conflicts with their cultish beliefs.

My typical disclaimer: this does not disprove warming. The Earth is currently in a typical Holocene warm period. Well, actually, a low level warm period. What this does show is that the Warmists are mostly wrong in regards to the cause of the Modern Warm Period.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Pause Hits 17 Years, 10 Months”

  1. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    No one has yet to prove causation either way. The only thing we can count on, is that the world has a way of balancing out and being resilient.

    CAGW’ers put up a theory about warming, and it is disproved. Science suggests that another theory should be tested. But CAGW’ers are not about science in the first place. Thus, they hold on to their theory like it is a religion.

  2. jl says:

    Exactly. First, it’s not warming. Second, even if it was is no proof of the causation. Third, if it was warming and the astrologers could prove it was caused by Co2 (how much of the warming-10%, 30%, 50%?), so what? Nothing “bad” has been happening, as all their doomsday scenarios have failed to come true-all these things not happening as CO2 rises.

  3. Jeffery says:

    g1,

    “… a theory about warming, and it is disproved.”

    That’s great! I missed the announcement where the theory of AGW was disproved. Can you link to it?

    Thanks. That’s a big relief.

  4. Jeffery says:

    I was relieved when Gumballs claimed global warming was over, but then I took a quick look at the evidence.

    Check out Figures 1-3 here: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    The oceans did not get The Teach’s memo about the “pause”, and continue to warm unabated, and sea level continues to rise (figures 4, 5, 6). The oceans account for over 90% of the impact of global warming.

    Here’s what all the datasets show between 1999 to 2014 (the past 15 years, which seems more reasonable than the oddly picked 17 years 10 months, lol):

    GISTEMP (total): 0.10C/decade
    NOAA (total): 0.07C/decade
    HADCRUT4 (total): 0.07C/decade
    NOAA (land): 0.14C/decade
    BEST (land): 0.17C/decade
    UAH (satellite): 0.15C/decade
    RSS (satellite): 0.03C/decade

    The Teach (and other Deniers) only report the RSS data because it shows the least warming. They ignore the other satellite dataset, UAH, developed by “skeptics” Roy Spencer and John Christy.

    The RSS temperature trend since its inception (1979) is 0.13C/decade; the UAH shows 0.14C/decade over that same time frame.

    The long-term surface datasets (GISTEMP, NOAA, HADCRUT) measured over the past 40 years show 0.15C/decade of warming.

    The evidence continues to support that the Earth is warming. There is no “pause”.

  5. Jeffery says:

    g1, g2, j,

    Why do you think Teach only reports (almost daily) the RSS dataset?

    Why does he ignore “skeptics” Christy and Spencer’s own dataset, UAH?

    Do any of you have a reasoned, evidence-based response to the evidence I presented and linked concluding there is no “pause”.

  6. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    I laugh.
    You laugh at a 17 year timeframe selection and then give one of your own at 15 years. So, please, just drop the cherry-picking argument if you are going to do it as well.

    Yes, UAH shows a trend of 0.14C per decade since 1978. however, that was also at the start of the recent warming trend. If you start at the moment of a rise, everything from that point on is rising. If you take the average level of that rise and fall, then you’ll see that nothing much changes.
    Here is the link to UAH
    http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
    Here is the link to the UAH dataset graph up till April 2014.
    http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/april/tlt_update_bar-042014.jpg
    If you start your trend from the bottom (1978) then there is an upward trend. Yet, if you look to see how current temperatures differ from the past, then you go back nearly 18 years to find any significant change. Thus, over the last nearly 18 years, there has been no warming!!

    You want to start in 1978? Ok, I’ll start at the Medieval Warm Period.

    You want to start at the coldest part of the last Ice Age? I’ll go farther back.

  7. Nice catch, GB. Of course, nothing we tell Jeff, no hard data, no science, no reality, will ever dissuade him from giving up his cult.

    Kinda like how Jeff won’t give up his fossil fuels usage.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Teach,

    By all means – let’s see some hard data, science or reality from you concerning global warming. I can be persuaded that global warming is false with evidence. But can you? Apparently not.

  9. Jeffery says:

    “You laugh at a 17 year timeframe selection and then give one of your own at 15 years. So, please, just drop the cherry-picking argument if you are going to do it as well.”

    g1, In fact you have to pick a 17 year time frame to obtain your desired result. As I pointed out, starting before your carefully picked time frame or after yields a different result.

    “UAH shows a trend of 0.14C per decade since 1978.” Thank you. That happens to be the start of the data collection for that database. Your admission may mean you are pulling away from the Denier cult.

    For the past five years the UAH database shows a trend of + 0.28C/decade!!!

    “You want to start in 1978? Ok, I’ll start at the Medieval Warm Period.” By all means, what did the satellites tell us then? Please be honest. The Teach, the Lord of Monktown etc chose the peculiar start for their “analyses” to include 1998 near their start point. Why 1998? It gives them a very very high baseline!

    “You want to start at the coldest part of the last Ice Age? I’ll go farther back.” When did I ever mention the coldest part of the last Ice Age?

  10. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    You really have no idea how statistics work, do you? Do you even understand what a “computer model” is? From everything you’ve been pushing here lately, and what you just said, I highly doubt it.

    And because I agree with the fact that a database of temperatures starts in 1978, does not show a causal relationship with my belief in or against CAGW. Only a fool and an idiot would link the two.

    “You want to start in 1978? Ok, I’ll start at the Medieval Warm Period.” By all means, what did the satellites tell us then?

    What did your beloved ice core proxy data show us? And yes, that was a stupid childish response from you.

    Teach, the Lord of Monktown etc chose the peculiar start for their “analyses” to include 1998 near their start point. Why 1998? It gives them a very very high baseline!

    Again, you really have no idea what statistics are, do you? You obviously fail to comprehend that the “start” isn’t 1997, but is in fact 2014.

  11. Jeffery says:

    Teach,

    Why do you refuse to defend the “evidence” you present? When you are called on it you revert to name-calling.

    Do you have a scientific rationale for choosing only the RSS dataset for your analysis of global warming? (For example, do you have evidence that it is superior to the others? Perhaps the wavelengths of radiant energies it measures that are converted into temperature anomalies by computer models is superior to the simple thermometers.) At one time one of your acolytes (g1, g2 or j) claimed that RSS was widely held (consensus, I guess) to be superior, but never substantiated that claim.

    Do you have a scientific rationale for choosing 1997 as your start point? Actual climate scientists claim longer is better (my wife agrees) and that 30 years of data are the minimum period that gives an accurate reflection of climate trends. 1997 + 30 years = 2027 before your RSS data are relevant if you insist on starting in 1997. Can you pick out a 30 year period in the data to support your claim? The RSS 30 year span ending in 2014 yields a trend of 0.15C/decade.

    from 1984 to 2014 (all in degrees C/decade):

    Land + ocean surface:
    GISTEMP: 0.17
    NOAA: 0.16
    HADCRUT: 0.17

    Land:
    BEST: 0.29
    NOAA: 0.30

    Satellite:
    RSS: 0.17
    UAH: 0.15

    Obviously the land masses warm more than the atmosphere or the ocean surfaces. Are you ignoring data out of ignorance or hiding data?

    Deniers have a solid stance in that the conversion from fossil fuels to renewables will damage the fossil fuels industry. Why not just say that and skip the anti-science posturing? The longer you Deny warming, the tougher it will be to admit the truth. You will end up looking like the Flat Earth Society. I do understand your natural reflex disdain for scientists, liberals, greens and environmentalists. It would be like me hearing Rush Limbaugh make a reasonable suggestion.

    The Earth is warming because we’ve added gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Unless we get hit by a large asteroid or have a series of supervolcano eruptions warming will continue.

  12. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    1st, don’t be an idiot. it makes you look idiotic and the troll you usually are. But then, I guess you can’t help it.

    Teach does not have to defend the creation of the data that led to that graph as it wasn’t his. however, he did provide the creator’s rationale for how the graph was created. If you are unwilling to read and comprehend, I know you have problems with statistics, then that is a problem with you, not Teach.

    And, even a Low-Information person knows that a 30-year average is not a running trend (unless specifically created to maintain a 30-year running trend line, that is. Of which, most climatological 30-year averages are not).

    So, J fails to argue against Monckton’s graphic, so he attacks it with another specious argument that has even less merit.

    <blockquote>The Earth is warming because we’ve added gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere
    No one has yet to be able to prove causality. And your theories – based on models – both of which are not holding up to reality.

    Deniers have a solid stance in that the conversion from fossil fuels to renewables will damage the fossil fuels industry.

    The Deniers stance is that “The Holocaust” did not happen. That has nothing to do with the politics around climate.

    The longer you Deny warming, the tougher it will be to admit the truth.

    No one has denied the warming, especially here on TPC. And, it is not tough to admit the truth that the warming can not be shown to be caused by, or mostly by, human activity. A more reasoned and as likely a reason is that it is a natural response to being in a post-glacial period. Especially in light that our environment has undergone greater swings in temp in the past.

    You will end up looking like the Flat Earth Society.

    I find it ironic that this reference is more emblematic to your side of the argument than it does to us – true scientists. As it was the “consensus” view, the state view, that our Earth was flat. And that any who deemed otherwise were crazy, foolhardy and needed to be shunned\silenced.

  13. Jeffery says:

    g1,

    Let’s not lose track of the question: Is the Earth warming? The answer is clearly yes based on the surface temperature datasets, the ocean heat content and the observations of ice melting and sea level rise.

    You are right that my understanding of statistics is fairly rudimentary. The US FDA usually accepts my arguments but drug trials are different than long-term climate data. My best friend is a biostatistician, and a university professor of statistics and I’ve learned some from him.

    I’ve asked this forum before for an explanation of the statistics used to determine what you call “significant” or “insignificant” atmospheric warming, but usually only receive insults about how stupid I must be (I assume it’s because no one here has any idea). I am always suspicious when advocates start inserting the word “significant” into their arguments.

    In science, the word “significant” has a specific meaning that must be spelled out.

    And yes I agree with you that The Teach started at the present and worked backward to find the longest flat spot in the dataset. If he had worked backward to 2008 he would have found a huge increase. If he had worked back to 1990 or 1985 he would have found a huge increase. He stopped at just the right time. And if 2015 is an El Nino year he will have to start over.

  14. Better_Be_Gumballs says:

    and once again, just about everything you said I disagree with or is just flat out wrong and you know it.

    Only thing, again, that almost all people can agree on that the data does seem to suggest, is that since the last ice age, our world has warmed up. As the period 100 years ago was closer to that lowest dip in ice age temperatures, then it stands to reason that it was cooler than current temperatures.

    Saying it is man’s fault holds less reasoned logic than saying it is due to a ice-free rebounding world.

    “Significance”… typically in biology and science is at the 10%, or 0.10 level. Some analyses has to be at 0.05 due to the types of data.

  15. Jeffery says:

    g1,

    That you disagree with my statements is understandable. That you say they are wrong without saying what is wrong is worthless.

    I’ve noticed that many Deniers object to the theory of AGW, not for scientific reasons, but because it somehow besmirches mankind, which is perilously close to the “reasoning” of the Cornwall Alliance.

    “As the period 100 years ago was closer to that lowest dip in ice age temperatures, then it stands to reason that it was cooler than current temperatures.” — Are you claiming that the average global temperature in 1914 was close to the average global temperature during the nadir of the last ice age? Wow, are you confused. It was over 4C colder at the bottom of the ice age than now. During the coldest time in the so-called little ice age it was 1 to 1.5C colder than now.

    Also, from a different thread here do you admit I was right about the employment figures and that you were wrong?

Bad Behavior has blocked 7362 access attempts in the last 7 days.