No warming, no worries, no windmills


The Freedom Clock shows nearly 20 years without global warming

Christopher Monckton thoughtfully keeps us acquainted with some essential moving targets on the climate change range. One monthly chore he undertakes is to update the RSS global mean temperature at Watts Up With That and (the neat part) find out whether the pause has got longer. It usually has. This is from his latest post a week or so back.


The Freedom Clock gets its data from the RSS satellite temperature trend, which shows neither warming nor cooling for ages and ages.

Here’s his delicious introductory paragraph.

To the growing embarrassment of the world-government wannabes who are preparing to meet in Paris next month to inflict upon the world a Solomon Binding treaty that will, in all but name, create an all-powerful global tyranny-by-clerk for the first time, the central pretext for the entire venture – global warming – continues to be conspicuous by its prolonged absence.

Chris Monckton explains that, though fully a third of Man’s influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has been released into the atmosphere since February 1997 (224 months ago), in that time the globe has declined to warm.

That’s now 18 years 8 months without warming. Which is nearly 20 years of no excuse for constant international junkets for the chattering classes to babble on about stopping global warming with money we gave them to arrest hunger and improve health.

He says “the hiatus period of 18 years 8 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated, starting from the present.”

As always, a note of caution. Merely because there has been little or no warming in recent decades, one may not draw the conclusion that warming has ended forever. The trend lines measure what has occurred: they do not predict what will occur.

The Pause – politically useful though it may be to all who wish that the “official” scientific community would remember its duty of skepticism – is far less important than the growing discrepancy between the predictions of the general-circulation models and observed reality.

Since there’s no significant warming, there are no worries about it and we needn’t build legions of windmills to run our steel mills and aluminium smelters because we’ve closed all the oil wells.

Our incompetent climate activists will not wake up to this simple truth until they entertain a desire to wake up.

Views: 250

40 Thoughts on “No warming, no worries, no windmills

  1. Simon on 20/10/2015 at 1:45 pm said:

    According to GISTemp, the number of months “without global warming” is actually two.

  2. Richard Treadgold on 20/10/2015 at 1:58 pm said:

    Simon, that’s such bad news! I’m terribly disappointed to hear it. I do have a question, though.

    1. How can you deduce anything from that spaghetti diagram?
    2. How can we know what happened in an individual month from a graph of multiple years to date?
    3. What is a progressive year to date—is something being accumulated?
    4. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out, in the diagram, the two months you claim are without warming?

    I fear this graph is a long way above my pay grade.

    I should point out that Monckton’s calculation looks at the monthly averages to find the annual trend, not, as GISS seems to be doing here, looking at actual temperatures for the smallest itty-bitty rise. Also, they must be ignoring the months when it cooled.

    When I expressed disappointment at hearing of no warming, I meant to be glad. Sorry, I briefly forgot myself. Thinking warming is a good thing. So you think you’re bringing good news, no?

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2015 at 3:47 pm said:

    >”According to GISTemp, the number of months “without global warming” is actually two.”

    Can’t read a graph Simon?

    Every month of the 1996 year, the second year in the series, all 12 months, was “without global warming” i.e. cooler than every month in 1995. February 1997 was cooler than February 1996, that is, “without global warming”. 6 of the 1997 months were cooler than the 1995 equivalents. February 1997 was cooler than February 1996. All of which was “without global warming”.

    And so on. But so what?

    How many GISTEMP months exhibit CO2-forced warming Simon i.e. conform to the CO2-forced models after 1955 say?

    Gavin Schmidt was Tweeting “Forcing-adjusted” models vs GISTEMP back in July in a desperate attempt to get CMIP5 to mimic observations.

    Apparently, when the models are adjusted down there’s a reasonable match with GISTEMP. Or in other words, you can make it up as you go along but the catastrophe seems to be diminishing rapidly. At this rate of adjustment the 2 C limit will never be reached.

    I note that every GISTEMP month from 1998/99 onwards (201 months) was “without [CO2-forced] global warming” as per the non-adjusted CMIP5 model mean.

    And thus the magic unravels.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2015 at 4:03 pm said:

    >”The Pause – ……. – is far less important than the growing discrepancy between the predictions of the general-circulation models and observed reality.”

    And again, as per the previous thread, the most important discrepancy of all is between the observed earth’s energy balance at TOA (the IPCC’s climate change criteria) and the theoretical anthropogenic forcing which is having no effect on it whatsoever.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2015 at 4:21 pm said:

    >”How many GISTEMP months exhibit CO2-forced warming Simon i.e. conform to the CO2-forced models after 1955 say?”

    1955 and 2015 are MDV neutral i.e. the MDV-neutral CO2-forced model mean, if it was valid, MUST pass through 2015 observations from BELOW. Even after Gavin Schmidt’s “Forcing-adjustment” that is still an impossibility, the CO2 forcing is superfluous.

    superfluous (adjective):

    Unnecessary, especially through being more than enough.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2015 at 4:48 pm said:

    >”the MDV-neutral CO2-forced model mean, if it was valid, MUST pass through 2015 observations from BELOW”

    Gavin Schmidt’s update is obviously not up to date. The following is up to 2014:

    CMIP5 model mean vs HadCRUT4

    No CO2-forced global warming since 1998 and no possibility of the MDV-neutral model mean passing through 2015 observations from below.

    Or, how the theory of man-made climate change crashed and burned.

  7. Andy on 20/10/2015 at 5:41 pm said:

    Canada will have plenty more windmills, not to mention Islamic Supremacists and other undesirables, now that the man child Trudeau has been elected as PM

  8. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2015 at 6:33 pm said:

    Warmist Prof. Alice Bows-Larkin calls for ‘planned recessions’ to fight ‘global warming’: ‘Economic growth needs to be exchanged’ for ‘planned austerity’ – ‘Whole system change’

    Read more:

    Well, she is about to get an unplanned recession that will make 2008 look ordinary. And US universities are certainly not immune.

    A case of being careful what you wish for.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2015 at 7:27 pm said:

    >”Well, she is about to get an unplanned recession that will make 2008 look ordinary”

    The last 30 years of global economic history are about to go out the window
    By Matt Phillips October 15, 2015

  10. Andy on 20/10/2015 at 7:30 pm said:

    The mass migration is already putting huge pressures on countries like Sweden and Germany who are inviting in millions of unskilled people who will likely form a mostly inter-generational welfare dependent population.

    This is going to turn nasty rather soon, I suspect. Sweden is already on the brink

  11. Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2015 at 9:59 pm said:

    On the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty:

    “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus, 1883

    “Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name,
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    # # #

  12. Richard C (NZ) on 21/10/2015 at 8:20 pm said:

    The ‘Environment Aotearoa’ report

    “surging carbon dioxide levels pose [a threat] to New Zealand’s environment, [the] official report finds.

    Baloney. No threat whatsoever.

    On the contrary, beneficial for forestry, horticulture, agriculture, native bush, i.e. the environment. And, therefore, us.

    No worries.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 21/10/2015 at 8:47 pm said:

    ‘Jupiter emits 67% more radiation than it receives from the Sun -only explanation is the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, not greenhouse gases’

    Warmists claim gravity cannot be the cause of any so-called “greenhouse effect” (or the “gravito-thermal greenhouse effect”) on Earth, Jupiter, nor any other planet, yet overwhelming observational evidence for every planet in our solar system (with adequate observational data – 8 planets at this point) clearly demonstrates that surface and atmospheric temperatures are a sole function of gravity/mass/pressure and independent of greenhouse gas concentrations.

    # # #

    The IPCC claims the earth’s radiation imbalance “controls” surface temperature, and, in fact, it is their sole climate change criteria.

    Their theory that CO2 is an agent of climate change is falsified by their own criteria, and temperature is totally independent of that criteria anyway.

  14. Simon on 22/10/2015 at 8:18 am said:

    It’s difficult to claim that there has been no recent global warming when September 2015 was the warmest month in recorded history:

  15. Andy on 22/10/2015 at 9:08 am said:

    It’s funny how the “warmest month in recorded history” actually isn’t, as stated in the article. It is the largest departure from an average for a particular month in recorded history

    So thumbs up for that at least, but the headline is what matters, and hashtags will ensue in the Twittersphere.

    By the way, there are some really big “climate marches” coming up in all the big centres. Hope y’all gonna be there, y’all.

  16. Richard Treadgold on 22/10/2015 at 9:35 am said:

    It’s difficult to claim that there has been no recent global warming when September 2015 was the warmest month in recorded history

    The reference you give is self-contradictory. The heading says: “Earth’s Warmest Month in Recorded History,” but in the story NOAA says “(Note that since July and August are typically the warmest months globally in absolute terms, September was not Earth’s warmest month in that regard.) NASA rated September 2015 slightly cooler, as the 2nd warmest September on record, falling below September 2014’s mark. September 2015’s warmth makes the year-to-date period (January – September) the warmest such period on record, according to both NOAA and NASA.”

    This is magnificent double-talk, impossible to penetrate. So, September 2015 was and was not the warmest month. Because it was the very warmest month ever recorded, except for many warmer Julys and Augusts (as expected), but it was cooler than September last year, though this year-to-date (January – September) is the very warmest such period ever recorded.

    Jeff Masters’ blog helpfully lists the top ten warmest global monthly anomalies ever recorded. Six of them are from 2015. The anomalies differ by 0.06°C — only six hundredths of a Celsius degree. Being less than the margin of error, this means the anomalies cannot be distinguished and are to all intents and purposes identical. These temperatures are all the same. It’s hardly significant warming, is it?

    For NOAA to claim a world record temperature from these numbers proves they are led by madmen. It’s anti-science to do so.

    Perhaps someone with better understanding of stats can throw some light on the double-talk. Though because we’re dealing with such a slim temperature margin it’s impossible to accept the claim of a record.

  17. Richard Treadgold on 22/10/2015 at 9:37 am said:


    It is the largest departure from an average for a particular month in recorded history

    How can this be without simultaneously being the highest temperature recorded?

  18. Andy on 22/10/2015 at 9:41 am said:

    September isn’t the warmest month in the NH. So departure from the September mean isn’t the warmest month in recorded history. It is the largest departure from the mean for a particular month.

    I could have the warmest December in recorded history, this doesn’t make it the warmest month in recorded history

  19. Richard Treadgold on 22/10/2015 at 9:50 am said:

    Ah. That I can understand, thanks. I thought the month was departing from the annual average. Still a misleading headline, though, as you say, and too slim a margin to claim a record. For what purpose all this smoke and mirrors? Insanity.

  20. Andy on 22/10/2015 at 9:52 am said:

    Anything for the cause.

    The article is somewhat more opaque

    (Note that since July and August are typically the warmest months globally in absolute terms, September was not Earth’s warmest month in that regard.) NASA rated September 2015 slightly cooler, as the 2nd warmest September on record, falling below September 2014’s mark. September 2015’s warmth makes the year-to-date period (January – September) the warmest such period on record, according to both NOAA and NASA. September 2015 was the fifth consecutive month a monthly high temperature record has been set in NOAA’s database, and the seventh month of the nine months so far in 2015.

  21. Richard Treadgold on 22/10/2015 at 9:58 am said:

    Opaque is rather polite; I prefer double-talk.

  22. Andy on 22/10/2015 at 5:15 pm said:

    From the article

    For years, climate change sceptics relied on a spike in global temperatures that occurred during the monster 1997-98 El Nino

    This is a falsehood, also known as a “lie”.
    Fairly typical of the MSM these days

  23. Andy on 22/10/2015 at 5:40 pm said:

    The warmists and the idiots at SMH are claiming that a single data point will invalidate “the pause” and at the same time claim that 15-18 years of no warming is not long enough to invalidate the long term trend of warming.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2015 at 7:49 pm said:

    >”It’s difficult to claim that there has been no recent global warming”

    Non issue. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t, Satellites don’t say so, Radiosondes similar, HadCRUT4 not so much either. But there maybe a little warming, hard to say, but if there was it is negligible.

    Real issue is: there has certainly NOT been any recent CO2-FORCED warming.

    The IPCC concedes this (to a degree, it will be a while before they throw in the towel):

    Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years

    ……an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error.

    It should be perfectly obvious to everyone by now that:

    A) The IPCC have neglected MDV as per (a), and

    B) CO2 forcing is superfluous as per (b) and the models-obs discrepancy:

    CMIP5 model mean vs HadCRUT4

    Nuff said.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2015 at 9:08 pm said:

    ‘The Only Global Warming Chart You Need from Now On’

    Written by Steve Hayward, PowerLine on 21 October 2015.

    “What if you display the [global average temperature] data with the axis starting not just from zero, but from the lower bound of the actual experienced temperature range of the earth? I had never thought of this until an acquaintance sent it along today:

    A little hard to get worked up about this, isn’t it? In fact you can barely spot the warming. No wonder you need a college education to believe in the alarmist version of climate change. No wonder the data ……. is never displayed this way in any of the official climate reports.

    If this chart were published on the front page of newspapers the climate change crusaders would be out of business instantly.”

  26. Simon on 23/10/2015 at 10:40 am said:

    Maybe you should start the y-axis at zero degrees Kelvin 🙂
    And finish the y-axis at 1000 degrees Kelvin.
    Then you won’t break the graph when the climate warms.

  27. Andy on 23/10/2015 at 11:36 am said:

    when the climate warms

    Is this a future, rather than current event?

  28. Richard C (NZ) on 23/10/2015 at 6:31 pm said:

    >”Maybe you should start the y-axis at zero degrees Kelvin”

    Well yes. But the temperature range experienced by humans on earth is more appropriate.

    Isn’t it?

  29. Andy on 24/10/2015 at 8:38 am said:

    Even this charming person S Lovejoy uses the term “pause” when discussing the lack of warming since 1998 but then spends a lot of time explaining why “denialist fantasies” are wrong.

    This piece is discussed by “denialist” Judith Curry here

  30. Richard C (NZ) on 24/10/2015 at 10:04 am said:

    Lovejoy’s approach is at least starting to get to the IPCC’s deficiencies e.g. neglect of MDV (although they now concede this, sort of, as upthread). But straight off there’s a number of problems I see without too much thought:

    1) The IPCC’s climate change criteria is TOA energy imbalance – not temperature i.e he’s analyzing incorrect metrics and assuming incorrect relationships. He should be applying radiative CO2 forcingf to the TOA radiative energy imbalance i.e. apples-to-apples. To be fair, so should the IPCC.

    2) Lovejoy’s MDV-neutral spline in (a) does not conform to the CO2-forced climate model mean i.e. Lovejoy is not applying radiative forcing as it should be. When it is, the models run too hot, hotter than the MDV-neutral spline. But kudos to Lovejoy for identifying the MDV-neutral spline (but see 3).

    3) Lovejoy uses ONLY GISTEMP and then truncates the data to 2012. If he had included up-to date-data the slope of the spline would be a little flatter i.e. approaching the MDV-neutral datapoint of 2015. His spline is similar to Foster &Ramhstorf’s, both are premature. Neither Lovejoy or F&R however, use appropriate signal analysis to identify the correct MDV-neutral spline i.e. the underlying secular trend (ST) in GMST. It is NOT linear and recently a negative inflexion is becoming evident (contrary to CO2) as one would expect given the cyclical nature of it (peak early 2020’s to Lovejoy’s dismay I imagine).

    4) Lovejoy’s treatment of solar is pathetic (part of one sentence). And no mention of planetary thermal inertia and lag or how long the lag(s) might be e.g. no mention of oceanic relaxation time constant(s).

    # # #

    I don’t think Shaun Lovejoy really knows what he has got himself into here. He’s opened a rather large can of worms.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on 24/10/2015 at 10:14 am said:

    Judith Curry expands on my point 3) which I couldn’t be bothered going into because it just jumps out at you (“pretty easy, actually” as JC puts it):

    First point: The IPCC attributes the warming since 1950 as due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Lovejoy discusses the warming since 1880. About 40% of the warming since 1880 occurred prior to 1950, and is not attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions. Further, according to the IPCC paleo analysis, the globe has been warming for the past 400 years, which also cannot be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions. The statistics of Lovejoy’s analysis are entirely different if you are looking at a warming period of 65 years rather than 125 years.

    No “climate closure” yet Shaun, not by a long shot.

  32. Andy on 24/10/2015 at 10:53 am said:

    The post 1950 attribution is fairly clear in the IPCC Detection and Attribution chapter. Raising this point to Gareth Morgan got me banned from his FB page and blog

    Quoting the IPCC makes you a “denialist fantasist” I guess

  33. Richard C (NZ) on 24/10/2015 at 2:09 pm said:

    >”The post 1950 attribution”

    >”the underlying secular trend (ST) in GMST. It is NOT linear and recently a negative inflexion is becoming evident (contrary to CO2)”

    The latter is a leading indicator. I’ve been watching a parallel situation developing in global debt deleveraging, everyone is watching lagging indicators instead of leading:

    ‘Everything’s Deflating And Nobody Seems To Notice’ – October 22, 2015, Raúl Ilargi Meije

    Whenever we at the Automatic Earth explain, as we must have done at least a hundred times in our existence, that, and why, we refuse to define inflation and deflation as rising or falling prices (only), we always get a lot of comments and reactions implying that people either don’t understand why, or they think it’s silly to use a definition that nobody else seems to use.

    -More or less- recent events, though, show us once more why we’re right to insist on inflation being defined in terms of the interaction of money-plus-credit supply with money velocity (aka spending). We’re right because the price rises/falls we see today are but a delayed, lagging, consequence of what deflation truly is, they are not deflation itself. Deflation itself has long begun, but because of confusing -if not conflicting- definitions, hardly a soul recognizes it for what it is.

    Moreover, the role the money supply plays in that interaction gets smaller, fast, as debt, in the guise of overindebtedness, forces various players in the global economy, from consumers to companies to governments, to cut down on spending, and heavily. We are as we speak witnessing a momentous debt deleveraging, or debt deflation, in real time, even if prices don’t yet reflect that. Consumer prices truly are but lagging indicators.

    The overarching problem with all this is that if you look just at -consumer- price movements to define inflation or deflation, you will find it impossible to understand what goes on. First, if you wait until prices fall to recognize deflation, you will tend to ignore the deflationary moves that are already underway but have not yet caused prices to drop. Second, when prices finally start falling, you will have missed out on the reason why they do, because that reason has started to build way before a price fall.

    Scroll down to, or view this graph at link:

    Evolution of global debt to GDP. No post-crisis deleveraging

    The only way a system that looks like this could be kept running is by issuing more debt. But even that couldn’t keep it going forever. We all understand this. We just don’t know the correct terminology for what’s happening. Which is that debt that has been inflated to such extreme proportions, must lead to deflation, and do so in spectacular fashion.

    Coincidentally the graph begins at 1951.

    # # #

    Takeaway being: if you are not watching the appropriate leading indicator you haven’t a clue what is going on.

    Whether global climate or global economics.

  34. Richard C (NZ) on 24/10/2015 at 7:14 pm said:

    ‘September 2015: Biggest Reported Anomaly Says NOAA’

    Global surface temperatures in September were 0.9oC above the long term average, according to data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the US.

    This is the warmest September recorded by NOAA and the largest single variance, or anomaly, to the long term average temperature over the twentieth century, ever recorded for any month in NOAA’s archive which stretches back to January 1880.

    Furthermore, five other months in 2015 have ranked among the top ten largest anomalies on record putting 2015 on rack to be the warmest year ever recorded by NOAA (see graph at top on right).

    US space agency NASA has reported September 2015 as the second warmest September in its records, behind last year. Two independent analyses of satellite measurements of the temperature of the atmosphere, by US firm Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), both suggest that September 2015 was only the fifth warmest September since 1979, when satellite monitoring began.

    This variance between the surface temperature data reported by NOAA and the atmospheric data collected by satellite is likely to fuel some debate over just how warm 2015 turns out to be. Especially, since NOAA recently revised the way it calculated global average surface temperatures and this revision is the basis of its latest reports. These changes have had the effect of warming more recent years compared with years further in the past. NASA has also adopted very similar changes.

    # # #

    “Likely to fuel some debate”. Yes, getting interesting. And we still have to wait for HadCRUT4.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2015 at 9:12 am said:

    Congressional skeptic on global warming demands records from U.S. climate scientists

    By Joby Warrick October 23

    The head of a congressional committee on science has issued subpoenas to the Obama administration over a recent scientific study refuting claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the last decade.

    Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and a prominent congressional skeptic on climate change, issued the subpoenas two weeks ago demanding e-mails and records from U.S. scientists who participated in the study, which undercut a popular argument used by critics who reject the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is behind the planet’s recent warming.

    Smith’s document request to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ordered the agency to turn over scientific data as well as internal “communications between or among employees” involved in the study, according to a letter Friday by the House committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Tex.).

    “This scandal-ridden administration’s lack of openness is the real problem,” Smith said in a statement released by his office. “Congress cannot do its job when agencies openly defy Congress and refuse to turn over information. When an agency decides to alter the way it has analyzed historical temperature data for the past few decades, it’s crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made.”

    Smith, a lawyer who became chairman of the science committee in 2013, has repeatedly rejected mainstream scientific views about climate change, while accusing the Obama administration of undermining the U.S. economy with policies that seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In writings and speeches, Smith has frequently cited scientific studies that suggested a slowing or even a halt in the rise of global temperatures since 2000.


    # # #

    >”it’s crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made”

    NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

    Michael Bastasch, 06/04/2015

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

    New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

    “Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

    To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

    NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

    “This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

    Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOAA’s new study.

    NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.

    “Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014” of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.

    The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago — that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid,” the study claims.

    But that’s not all NOAA did to increase the warming trend in recent decades. Climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.”

    “If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.[see link below]

    “It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

    NOAA’s updated data was also criticized by climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute. Scientists Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger argue the adjustments made by NOAA were “guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data.”

    Cato scientists also argued that NOAA’s new data is an outlier compared to other global temperature records, which overwhelmingly show a hiatus in warming.

    It “would seem more logical to seriously question the [NOAA] result in light of the fact that, compared to those bulk temperatures, it is an outlier, showing a recent warming trend that is not in these other global records,” the three scientists wrote.

    “Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data,” wrote Michaels, Knappenberger and Lindzen, who is a top climatologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Scientists and climate experts skeptical of man-made global warming have become increasingly critical of temperature adjustments made by government climate agencies like NASA and NOAA. Skeptics charge that agencies like NOAA have been tampering with past temperatures to make the warming trend look much more severe than is shown in the raw data.

    “It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much,” they wrote. “And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.”

    Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry also chimed in, arguing that NOAA excluded extremely accurate sea buoy data in order to erase the hiatus in warming. Curry wrote that it “seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.”

    “Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998,” she wrote. “This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”

    ‘NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data’

    / June 4, 2015, By Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts, commentary from Dr. Judith Curry follows


    It is from the result of all this that the likes of Simon upthread, the Sydney Morning Herald (see below), and every other warmy, are now regaling sceptics with this:

    The graphic that shows why 2015 global temperatures are off the charts’

    October 22, 2015, Peter Hannam

    Lets hope Lamar Smith gets the goods – as we did with Climategate.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2015 at 10:56 am said:

    Karl et al:

    “Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014” of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.

    # # #

    If it was CO2-forced, the 2000-2014 trend should be up around 0.33 C/decade.

    In other words, they’ve only manufactured one third of the warming they need to.

    Still a work in progress I’m guessing.

  37. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2015 at 11:23 am said:

    >”If it was CO2-forced, the 2000-2014 trend should be up around 0.33 C/decade.”

    That is out to 2050. Tisdale has the model mean 0.28 C/decade 2000 – 2030 upthread (RCP6.5).

    So Karl et al need to manufacture another 0.164 C/decade (0.28 – 0.116 = 0.164).

    Tall order but I’m sure they’re up for it.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2015 at 11:31 am said:

    Lamar Smith must have read the Tisdale/Watts post:

    Some might think that NOAA under the direction of Tom Karl designed their ship-buoy bias adjustments with the sole intent of minimizing the impacts of natural slowdown in surface warming. (Those would be some interesting emails and meeting minutes to read.)

    And did Tisdale have Smith’s eyes in mind when that was written?

  39. Richard C (NZ) on 03/11/2015 at 8:04 pm said:

    UAH V6.0 Global Temperature Update for October 2015: +0.43 deg. C

    November 2nd, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    2015 01 +0.28 +0.40 +0.16 +0.13
    2015 02 +0.17 +0.30 +0.05 -0.06
    2015 03 +0.16 +0.26 +0.07 +0.05
    2015 04 +0.08 +0.18 -0.01 +0.09
    2015 05 +0.28 +0.36 +0.21 +0.27
    2015 06 +0.33 +0.41 +0.25 +0.46
    2015 07 +0.18 +0.33 +0.03 +0.47
    2015 08 +0.27 +0.25 +0.30 +0.51
    2015 09 +0.25 +0.34 +0.17 +0.55
    2015 10 +0.43 +0.64 +0.21 +0.53

    As can be seen, there was a rather large jump in the global average anomaly, but instead of it being due to the tropics being warmer (as El Nino continues), it was due to a very warm (but not record warm) month in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics.

    # # #

    So much for “global” warming”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation