• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Global warming standstill/pause increases to ‘a new record length': 18 years 6 months

dphantom

Diamond Member
And then there is the satellite data that shows even with an emerging El Nino, the so called global warming temperature pause continues. Warming since 1900 is .8C/century while warming since 1950 when according to the IPCC man began to have a measurable effect on global temperature is 1.2C/century.

El Niño strengthens: the Pause lengthens
Global temperature update: no warming for 18 years 6 months
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
For 222 months, since December 1996, there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature – still unaffected by a slowly strengthening el Niño, which will eventually cause temporary warming – passes another six-month milestone, and establishes a new record length for the Pause: 18 years 6 months.
What is more, the IPCC’s centrally-predicted warming rate since its First Assessment Report in 1990 is now more than two and a half times the measured rate. On any view, the predictions on which the entire climate scare was based were extreme exaggerations.
However, it is becoming ever more likely that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an el Niño may come through after a lag of four or five months. The Pause may yet shorten somewhat, just in time for the Paris climate summit, though a subsequent La Niña would be likely to bring about a resumption of the Pause.
clip_image002_thumb3.jpg

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 6 months since December 1996.
The hiatus period of 18 years 6 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. Note that the start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.
The divergence between the models’ predictions in 1990 (Fig. 2) and 2005 (Fig. 3), on the one hand, and the observed outturn, on the other, continues to widen. For the time being, these two graphs will be based on RSS alone, since the text file for the new UAH v.6 dataset is not yet being updated monthly. However, the effect of the recent UAH adjustments – exceptional in that they are the only such adjustments I can recall that reduce the previous trend rather than steepening it – is to bring the UAH dataset very close to that of RSS, so that there is now a clear distinction between the satellite and terrestrial datasets, particularly since the latter were subjected to adjustments over the past year or two that steepened the apparent rate of warming.
clip_image004_thumb3.jpg

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), for the 305 months January 1990 to May 2015 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.1 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v. 5.6 satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
clip_image006_thumb2.jpg

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to May 2015, 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 near-zero observed anomalies (dark blue) and real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v. 5.6 satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
The Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCC’s predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century.

Key facts about global temperature
  • The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 222 months from December 1996 to May 2015 – more than half the 437-month satellite record.
  • The entire RSS dataset from January 1979 to date shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.2 Cº per century.
  • 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 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.
  • The fastest warming rate lasting 15 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 warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report is equivalent to 1.1 Cº per century. The IPCC had predicted two and a half times as much.
  • 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 15 years that has been measured since 1950.
  • The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
  • The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO bathythermograph buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 Cº per decade, equivalent to 0.23 Cº per century.
  • Recent extreme-weather events cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. 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.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06...ses-to-a-new-record-length-18-years-6-months/
 
lol

I swear, deniers continually pointing to surface temps just look ridiculously moronic.

And come on, at least attempt to link to credible sites and research; your source is literally a former Rush Limbaugh lackey with a degree in the most precise of sciences; political science.
 
Man, I bet this unscientific article on climate change written by a birther with zero knowledge or qualifications in climate science is sure to be free of errors, deliberate dishonesty, or selective presentation.
 
There is already an existing climate denier thread. Why not post this drivel in there?
 
the sourcing for the graphs is in the graphs themselves. I really do not care if Joe Blow posted the information provided it is not changed from the original source - that is it is an accurate account of what was published.

As for the points listed, perhaps any of you could point by point refute them?

And finally, I posted this so as to provide a counterpoint to a study that did NOT look at the most accurate measurement systems we have today to come to their conclusions - ARGO and satellite.
 
So, just to rehash. Satellite data that has not been fudged....errr... "corrected" to produce the desired conclusions = bad. Data corrected to support to desired outcome = good.

Thus concludes our lesson today in our class on the global warming cult teachings. Won't be long until the faithful come along to disparage the source rather than the data.
 
So your back to the climate is not changing I see.

Let's see:

Didn't cherry pick the timeframe by cherry picking the timeframe to exclude warming. 😵
That seems legit.

When the actually researchers of the UAH and RSS show:

It's notable how similar all the various temperature records look. Both types of temperature measurement - tropospheric and surface - show a consistent warming trend.

Over the satellite period, the lower troposphere warmed by 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade, according to UAH data. RSS puts the figure slightly lower at 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade.

satellite2.gif


Falsely/ignorantly claiming that the surface temperature/lower troposphere temperature is equivalent of the entire Earth instead of one small part of the energy balance.

Down playing the absolutely huge increase in ocean energy. That 0.02C increase would have been an equivalent increase in atmospheric temperature of about 21C by the way. I'm glad we have the oceans....

When you show me an energy balance that shows the W/m^2 that the earth receives is equal to the W/m^2 leaving I'll believe warming has stopped.

Or

When you show me that the thermal energy stored in the land, ocean, and total atmosphere had plateaued year to year I'll believe warming has stopped.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...s-no-evidence-hiatus-rising-temperatures.html

Professor Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at University College London, said: ‘This important re-analysis suggests there never was a global warming hiatus; if anything, temperatures are warming faster in the last 15 years than in the last 65 years.’

He added: ‘A whole cottage industry has been built by climate skeptics on the false premise that there is currently a hiatus in global warming.

‘This is despite climate data showing continued warming of the Earth surface.’

And Professor Peter Wadhams, professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge, said: 'This is a careful and persuasive analysis.'

He added: 'I think [it] shows clearly that the so-called ‘hiatus’ does not exist and that global warming has continued over the past few years at the same rate as in earlier years.'
 
The safest course of action is to use as little fossil fuel as possible. I think with car electrification and solar prices coming down on the cost curve they are coming down on, it's going to be the cheapest course of action too in not too long.
 
So, just to rehash. Satellite data that has not been fudged....errr... "corrected" to produce the desired conclusions = bad. Data corrected to support to desired outcome = good.

Thus concludes our lesson today in our class on the global warming cult teachings. Won't be long until the faithful come along to disparage the source rather than the data.

Nope.

The lesson today is showing the depths of dishonesty that various deniers are willing to stoop to in order to try and cloud the issue, as has just been shown...yet again.

I can't help but continue to notice how selectively credulous "skeptics" are: For information that challenges their views they easily assign dark ulterior motives to scientific papers subject to peer review but immediately accept unreviewed, unscientific analyses by birthers if they support their views.

Does that sound like people who are rationally evaluating the available evidence?
 
For information that challenges their views they easily assign dark ulterior motives to scientific papers subject to peer review but immediately accept unreviewed, unscientific analyses by birthers if they support their views.

Does that sound like people who are rationally evaluating the available evidence?

Yeah, I know, it's crazy, who would believe unaltered source data instead of believing the data that has been altered to support certain conclusions? Sheer craziness.

Regardless, I've already said that the evidence seems pretty clear to me about the long term direction and that human activity probably has a significant impact on it. However, just because I don't blindly toe the line and follow cult thinking and the "we have to do something, anything, now!!%@!!%!" mentality, I'm a "denier". Got it.
 
So your back to the climate is not changing I see. Let's see: Didn't cherry pick the timeframe by cherry picking the timeframe to exclude warming. That seems legit. When the actually researchers of the UAH and RSS show:

I am not cherry picking. I am specifically referring to the documented pause. period. I have agreed with you there has been warming and I fully support the RSS/UAH data showing such. The pause is variously measured but I am using the points set out by climate scientists as between 1996 and today. That period shows a pause. Period. The overall trend as I stated in other posts is .8C/century since 1900 and 1.2C/century since 1950. The trend is flat or slightly declining since 1996. Nowhere have I ever, ever denied there is warming taking or having taken place.

You and others are the ones who are twisting very clearly stated points. You and others simply cannot accept that anyone can ever have a viewpoint that says anything but that man is the near sole cause of all global warming since - in your words - 1850. BTW, an unheard of assertion anywhere. IPCC says there is no measurable data that can be attributable by man prior to 1950. But you seem to think so.
 
I am not cherry picking. I am specifically referring to the documented pause. period. I have agreed with you there has been warming and I fully support the RSS/UAH data showing such. The pause is variously measured but I am using the points set out by climate scientists as between 1996 and today. That period shows a pause. Period. The overall trend as I stated in other posts is .8C/century since 1900 and 1.2C/century since 1950. The trend is flat or slightly declining since 1996. Nowhere have I ever, ever denied there is warming taking or having taken place.

You and others are the ones who are twisting very clearly stated points. You and others simply cannot accept that anyone can ever have a viewpoint that says anything but that man is the near sole cause of all global warming since - in your words - 1850. BTW, an unheard of assertion anywhere. IPCC says there is no measurable data that can be attributable by man prior to 1950. But you seem to think so.

Someone has already quite clearly explained in this thread that the article is bunk, as it refers to surface temp data, which is but one small part of the overall warming trend, the other variable being big increases in ocean energy/temps.

This is not difficult to understand.
 
Someone has already quite clearly explained in this thread that the article is bunk, as it refers to surface temp data, which is but one small part of the overall warming trend, the other variable being big increases in ocean energy/temps.

This is not difficult to understand.
RSS/UAH is satellite data. This is not difficult to understand.
 
lol

I swear, deniers continually pointing to surface temps just look ridiculously moronic.

And come on, at least attempt to link to credible sites and research; your source is literally a former Rush Limbaugh lackey with a degree in the most precise of sciences; political science.

Oh hooray, other thread with the left wing version of "but WMDs *were* found in Iraq!" But please continue with the same circle jerk of people whose policies have been rightfully ignored for decades telling us about "consensus" and how we're all doomed if we don't do what they say.
 
Oddly enough I was on Wikipedia looking up Greenland. (Don't ask me why. I don't even know anymore).

Between 1989 and 1993, US and European climate researchers drilled into the summit of Greenland's ice sheet, obtaining a pair of 3 km (1.9 mi) long ice cores. Analysis of the layering and chemical composition of the cores has provided a revolutionary new record of climate change in the Northern Hemisphere going back about 100,000 years, and illustrated that the world's weather and temperature have often shifted rapidly from one seemingly stable state to another, with worldwide consequences.[59] The glaciers of Greenland are also contributing to a rise in the global sea level at a faster rate than was previously believed.[60] Between 1991 and 2004, monitoring of the weather at one location (Swiss Camp) showed that the average winter temperature had risen almost 6 °C (11 °F).[61] Other research has shown that higher snowfalls from the North Atlantic oscillation caused the interior of the ice cap to thicken by an average of 6 cm or 2.36 in/yr between 1994 and 2005. [62] However, a recent study suggests a much warmer planet in relatively recent geological times:

Scientists who probed 2 km (1.2 mi) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said that the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants, and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could not have existed in Greenland any later than 2.4 million years ago. These DNA samples suggest that the temperature probably reached 10 °C (50 °F) in the summer and −17 °C (1.4 °F) in the winter. They also indicate that during the last interglacial period, 130,000–116,000 years ago, when local temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.[63]

So its way warmer now.
And it was much warmer in the past.

It's all contradicting...
 
We should start a poll to figure out what conservatives hate more.
The environment
Non-hispanic, non-Muslim Minorities
Hispanics
Muslims
Women
Homosexuals
Basic human decency








And all the above answers are wrong. Conservatives most hate .... SANITY!
 
😀 +1

So your back to the climate is not changing I see.

Let's see:

Didn't cherry pick the timeframe by cherry picking the timeframe to exclude warming. 😵
That seems legit.

When the actually researchers of the UAH and RSS show:



satellite2.gif


Falsely/ignorantly claiming that the surface temperature/lower troposphere temperature is equivalent of the entire Earth instead of one small part of the energy balance.

Down playing the absolutely huge increase in ocean energy. That 0.02C increase would have been an equivalent increase in atmospheric temperature of about 21C by the way. I'm glad we have the oceans....

When you show me an energy balance that shows the W/m^2 that the earth receives is equal to the W/m^2 leaving I'll believe warming has stopped.

Or

When you show me that the thermal energy stored in the land, ocean, and total atmosphere had plateaued year to year I'll believe warming has stopped.
Yeah, plus he totally forgot to go back and make the past recorded temperatures colder. Obviously he's no rocket scientist. (Well - at least no government rocket scientist.)

Pay no attention to the thermometer behind the curtain. The important thermometer is the invisible sky thermometer, and I will tell you what it says.

The safest course of action is to use as little fossil fuel as possible. I think with car electrification and solar prices coming down on the cost curve they are coming down on, it's going to be the cheapest course of action too in not too long.
Safest, cleanest and smartest.
 
And then there is the satellite data that shows even with an emerging El Nino, the so called global warming temperature pause continues. Warming since 1900 is .8C/century while warming since 1950 when according to the IPCC man began to have a measurable effect on global temperature is 1.2C/century.

El Niño strengthens: the Pause lengthens
Global temperature update: no warming for 18 years 6 months
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
For 222 months, since December 1996, there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature – still unaffected by a slowly strengthening el Niño, which will eventually cause temporary warming – passes another six-month milestone, and establishes a new record length for the Pause: 18 years 6 months.
What is more, the IPCC’s centrally-predicted warming rate since its First Assessment Report in 1990 is now more than two and a half times the measured rate. On any view, the predictions on which the entire climate scare was based were extreme exaggerations.
However, it is becoming ever more likely that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an el Niño may come through after a lag of four or five months. The Pause may yet shorten somewhat, just in time for the Paris climate summit, though a subsequent La Niña would be likely to bring about a resumption of the Pause.
clip_image002_thumb3.jpg

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 6 months since December 1996.
The hiatus period of 18 years 6 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. Note that the start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.
The divergence between the models’ predictions in 1990 (Fig. 2) and 2005 (Fig. 3), on the one hand, and the observed outturn, on the other, continues to widen. For the time being, these two graphs will be based on RSS alone, since the text file for the new UAH v.6 dataset is not yet being updated monthly. However, the effect of the recent UAH adjustments – exceptional in that they are the only such adjustments I can recall that reduce the previous trend rather than steepening it – is to bring the UAH dataset very close to that of RSS, so that there is now a clear distinction between the satellite and terrestrial datasets, particularly since the latter were subjected to adjustments over the past year or two that steepened the apparent rate of warming.
clip_image004_thumb3.jpg

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), for the 305 months January 1990 to May 2015 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.1 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v. 5.6 satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
clip_image006_thumb2.jpg

Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to May 2015, 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 near-zero observed anomalies (dark blue) and real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v. 5.6 satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
The Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCC’s predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century.

Key facts about global temperature
  • The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 222 months from December 1996 to May 2015 – more than half the 437-month satellite record.
  • The entire RSS dataset from January 1979 to date shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.2 Cº per century.
  • 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 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.
  • The fastest warming rate lasting 15 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 warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report is equivalent to 1.1 Cº per century. The IPCC had predicted two and a half times as much.
  • 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 15 years that has been measured since 1950.
  • The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
  • The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO bathythermograph buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 Cº per decade, equivalent to 0.23 Cº per century.
  • Recent extreme-weather events cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. 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.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06...ses-to-a-new-record-length-18-years-6-months/

I am not cherry picking. I am specifically referring to the documented pause. period. I have agreed with you there has been warming and I fully support the RSS/UAH data showing such. The pause is variously measured but I am using the points set out by climate scientists as between 1996 and today. That period shows a pause. Period. The overall trend as I stated in other posts is .8C/century since 1900 and 1.2C/century since 1950. The trend is flat or slightly declining since 1996. Nowhere have I ever, ever denied there is warming taking or having taken place.

You and others are the ones who are twisting very clearly stated points. You and others simply cannot accept that anyone can ever have a viewpoint that says anything but that man is the near sole cause of all global warming since - in your words - 1850. BTW, an unheard of assertion anywhere. IPCC says there is no measurable data that can be attributable by man prior to 1950. But you seem to think so.

RSS/UAH is satellite data. This is not difficult to understand.

No.

Abstract of Peer-reviewing
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-015-0806-z

Free debunking that is layman-friendly.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton15errors.html

Here's the hero who wrote the garbage piece quoted by OP:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...Australian-climate-change-adviser-a-Nazi.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top