The U.K. may have had its warmest year on record in 2022 (at least, according to the Met Office’s frequently adjusted data), but globally the temperature has remained flat now for 100 months, since 2014. Christopher Monckton writes about the inconvenient data in Watts Up With That?
The cold weather on both sides of the Atlantic last month seems to have had its effect on temperature, which fell sharply compared with November, lengthening the New Pause to eight years four months, as measured by the satellites designed, built and operated by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
The graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the monthly global mean lower-troposphere anomalies. The least-squares method was recommended by Professor Jones of the University of East Anglia as a reasonable method of showing the trend on stochastic temperature data.
Recall that the Pause graph does not constitute a prediction: it simply reports the longest period, working back from the present, during which the temperature trend is not positive.
As always, here is the full 45-year UAH dataset from December 1978 to December 2022, showing a far from dramatic global warming trend equivalent to just 0.134°C per decade:
With carbon dioxide emissions climbing ever higher, the lack of warming for approaching a decade does not exactly instil confidence in the models that claim CO2 is the climate control knob that keeps the temperature going up and up.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I do hope the warming hasn’t stopped. It’s still way too cold for my liking. And, I think, for most people. Maybe I missed the hordes of retirees heading off to Alaska and Scotland to enjoy their twilight years.
No doubt in years to come, academics will regale each other with stories of the institutionalised catastrophising ideation that their predecessors suffered from, and nervously laugh about how they themselves would never succumb to such nonsense.
There was a warm-pause as well from about 2000-2012 or so I do recall.
This is when the eco-cult moved on to ‘changing’.
Warming means nothing to them. It is the ‘changing’ which counts, colder, warmer, nothing – all supports the ‘changing’. From the trace chemical 95% emitted by Gaia which makes oxygen. You know the science. THE $cience.
The usual riposte is that the pause may only be temporary. But if so, it’s still an 8 year pause, and it’s therefore hard to believe the claims that the same period has seen deterioration in weather patterns, increasing extinctions and so on sufficient to turn it into an emergency. In fact, it’s hard to believe them anyway given the absence of evidence for any more extreme weather (in the IPCC technical report itself), and the lack of any actual, named, extinctions due to climate change.
If there’s a cause-and-effect relation between increasing CO2 levels and averaged temperatures, there must not be pauses. If CO2 increases but temperature doesn’t, it can – at worst – be a minor contributory factor.
That said, global mean temperature is still just as sensible as a quantity as global mean shoe size.
In the absence of any actual, named, extinctions doubtless somebody will come up with a model that will predict extinctions, even to the point of counting the number of species that have not yet evolved, and then predicting how many of them will go extinct, then attribute the extinction to climate change. This project will attract vast amounts of funding and yield nothing but fantasy scenarios and scary television programmes.
This physicist males a very compelling case that we are about to enter a severe mini ice age.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYOMKLDbeYE
If you can endure the impenetrable maths and stick with it, it evetually becomes clearer and more understandable.
I found it fascinating.
Ah, but look at all of the extreme weather events they say as they change the narrative to suit their agenda!
Facts are a mere inconvenience to the Green zealot.
We need to reframe the argument as thus:
Q: What is the ultimate goal of environmentalism?
A: To reduce the impact on nature of anthropogenic activity.
Q: How best can we do this?
A: Reduce the human population.
Q: Why have wealthier nations got a lower birth rate?
A: Energy, infrastructure, medicine, education, technology.
Q: How can we make the developing world wealthier and thus reduce their birth rate?
A: Energy, infrastructure, medicine, education, technology.
Q: What is the cheapest, most abundant, cleanest, CO2 free, most reliable and safest form of energy generation?
A: Nuclear, especially liquid salt thorium reactors.
Q: Why can’t the developing world have nuclear?
A: 🦗 🦗 🦗 🦗
Q: Why have wealthier nations got a lower birth rate?
A: Because women are strongly incentivzed to poison themselves to avoid pregnancies so that they can work instead.
How inconvenient. Move along, nothing to see here …… Oh look, there’s windmill 🙂
At the first earth day in 1970 the doomsayers announced we’ed all be dead by 1985! That came and went so then it was 2000 that came and went so….get the picture? Even time they say “but this time its real” keep insisting the end is nigh and one day you’ll be right!
Can’t wait for the next firestorm death spiral!
sorry, summer ☀️
It is simply not valid to compare peak temperatures measured with modern digital thermometers to those taken with traditional liquid max/min thermometers.
If we are to believe the figures from Coningsby where the latest “record” temperature was measured, the temperatures are read every 6 seconds (apparently as it is said that there it was considerably less a few seconds before and after).
A traditional mercury or alcohol thermometer has thermal inertia, that is, it takes a finite time for the temperature rise to heat up all the liquid in the bulb to cause it to expand. Instructions for reading them specify that the temperature should only be read once equilibrium has been reached.
From my experiments of plotting temperatures in physics I recall waiting for a lot longer than 6 seconds for a response (think how long you used to have to keep a thermometer under your tongue before a nurse would read it).
A transient temperature such as that measured at Coningsby would simply not be registered in the past.
“Hide the Decline” from the Climategate emails revealed the joining of different data sets because one data set stopped showing warming so another data set that did was tagged on. ——-This is a total NO NO in science.
The idea that because the earth is supposedly warming from our CO2 emissions as a result of using fossil fuels is we should STOP using them. But since about 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels that is not going to happen. Infact it is impossible unless we return to pre–Industrial Revolution type of living, where life expectancy was half of what it is now, and where back breaking manual labour and preventable disease was killing millions. But it is really just the wealthy western countries that are to follow this “Sustainable Development” anti-impact idea, mainly because we can afford to indulge in fanciful technologies for political purposes. So, we are to reduce our emissions and use silly technologies like wind and sun, which are really just expensive supplements that cause big rises in energy prices, and badly affect the poor and the old, which our politicians could care less about as they just dish out some more welfare to help alleviate that suffering. But high energy prices also impact business and trade.—- So why is this happening? Why are eg the UK government prepared to spend one and a half trillion on NET ZERO policies that will have next to no effect on climate? The reason is that it is not and never was about the climate. ————This is UN politics that states that the wealthy west has used up more than its fair share of the fossil fuels in the ground and must stop doing that. It is a kind of eco socialism. We are supposedly to stop using fossil fuels to avoid a climate emergency but developing countries like China and India, who are responsible for about half of all emissions apparently don’t have to bother and continue to use fossil fuels to bring millions out of poverty.— But is there really an “emergency”? Temperatures are not unprecedented, and neither is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Storms are not increasing, neither are floods or droughts or wildfires. So, what is the emergency? —– It is entirely based on the output from climate models full of assumptions that don’t include many parameters, because they are not at all understood, and all of the models (over 100 of them) have been totally wrong till now. Yet government continues to make policy based on those models.————- We always hear about the risk of using fossil fuel but the risk of not using them is far greater, as without them we would be back in the Stoneage. This is why temperature data that is continually manipulated should be a cautionary tale. There is no evidence that CO2 is causing or will cause dangerous changes to climate.——–It is all POLITICS. ——-Will fossil fuels destroy the world? No, but they may save the world and the 3 billion in abject poverty trying to eke out an existence without them because technocrats trying to control the worlds wealth and resources deny them those fuels
Keep up your excellent comments.