Stefan Rahmstorf: No pause, anywhere!
By Michael Krueger
[Translated by P. Gosselin)
“No pause, anywhere!” announced Stefan Rahmstorf in his latest article at KlimaLounge. And he added: “As our long-term readers know, there’s been a steady global warming since the 1970s, though it has been superimposed by the usual short-term fluctuations, it has not slowed down or accelerated by any significant means. […] As there has not been any slowdown, there has not been any pause or hiatus of any kind in warming.”
But this is easy to check over. To do this I’ve gotten the data on global temperature from the NOAA, plotted them and added the linear trends for the periods of 1970-2015, 1980-2015, 1990-2015, 2000-2015 and 2005-2015. (By the way, NOAA also uses the NASA GISS dataset for global temperature).
What is seen above is that the trend since 1970 has been in decline. The rise in the trend lines is becoming less and less., i.e. flatter and flatter. Meanwhile the global warming scientists have been telling us for year/decades that global warming would accelerate more and more as greenhouse gases increased.
In fact just the opposite has been true.
Here once again is the NOAA data in its original form from the NOAA site for the period of 1998-2015.
There are actually people who see in it an unabated global warming (in the range of 1/100 of a degree). Hard to believe. Yes, you only have to believe in it, and suddenly you’ll see it. It’s like the blotch images in psychology.
40 responses to ““There Are People Who Believe They See Unabated Global Warming In the 1/100°C Range” …Warming Has Ground To a Halt”
GISS claimed margin of error for global temperature is ±0.05°C.
Check this image and look for the faint green bracket in the top right corner. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
the trick is “global temperature” is not a physical thing than .so there is no other way to measure it…
by the way did anyone give you a definition of global temperature?
“added the linear trends for the periods of 1970-2015, 1980-2015, 1990-2015, 2000-2015 and 2005-2015.”
these are all time intervals with a different length.
Any comparison of those without some control over fit, significance and/or error bars is of little value.
This tool allows a very good look at the data:
Yes, the graph should use equal length segments. I think it would probably make the same point, but would not be so vulnerable to the charge of comparing apples with oranges.
I think this is their standard response to trends that don’t show what they want. It is certainly a little subtle for someone who has trouble with simple arithmetic.
But if they think that you need a longer time span, why not start at the favourite point of a cool 1950? The trend is less. It would be even less if you used 1942 to 2014, but then you plot from low points to high in NASA “science”.
And how did 2015 get in? I thought we still had a few months to go, or has the temperature been decided now, in time for the Paris Conference?
I reckon we should start around 1000 years ago.. COOLING since the MWP.
or maybe 10,000 years ago, seeing we are currently a tiny molehill above the COLDEST point the whole current Holocene interglacial
“I reckon we should start around 1000 years ago.. COOLING since the MWP.”
But do not forget the error bars, like in my link.
Then you will notice, that you get high uncertainty (because the data is bad).
You also get high uncertainty over short time periods (because there are few data points).
That leaves us with the good periods: rather long periods of good data. And basically all of those show warming up till today.
“rather long periods of good data”
The only “good” data is the satellite dat.
Everything else has now been so twisted, fudged and manipulated as to be worthless.
The satellite data shows that the only warming since it started comes from the 1998 El Nino.
It also supports a zero trend back 25.7 years, according to Cowtan’s calaulator.
We are only just above the COLDEST period in the whole of the Holocene. Well below much warmer more abundant Ooptimums of the past 10,000 or so years.
We should be very thankful that we have had this tiny amount of warming in the last 150 or so years.
“or has the temperature been decided now”
Gavin has received a strict memo !
Cowtan.. roflmao !!!
debunked many times.
next you will cite Mickey Mann or Sks and really go for the laughs.
Yes sob, and the Sks trend calculator can verify that the current ZERO trend in RSS is statistically supportable back some 26 years.
In fact, once you remove the effect of the 1998 non-carbon forced El Nino, there has been absolutely zero warming in the whole period of the satellite data. The slight warming before the El Nino almost exactly cancels the slight cooling since.
There has been ZERO carbon dioxide forced warming in the WHOLE of the satellite record.
“Yes sob, and the Sks trend calculator can verify that the current ZERO trend in RSS is statistically supportable back some 26 years. ”
The trend from 1988 to 2014 is upwards in RSS (0.12°C per decade). Or was your plan to cherry pick 1998 as a a starting point 16 years ago?
“The slight warming before the El Nino almost exactly cancels the slight cooling since.”
This is false.
The full trend is 0.121°C per decade (basically the same as over 26 years)
a high point in the middle of the data (1998) will do basically nothing to the linear trend (apart from giving a bad fit).
Your claim is false and everybody can check this by following the link and changing the dataset to RSS in 30 seconds!
If you had even the most basic understanding of what I said, you would know that it is correct.
But as you a mathematical newt, I don’t expect to understand.. I will repeat the mathematical FACT for you, and leave you to try to work it out, and laugh while you continue to thrash about in your ignorance. 🙂
(slight correction to remove rounding)
“the Sks trend calculator can verify that the current ZERO trend in RSS is statistically supportable back 25.7 years. ”
““The slight warming before the El Nino almost exactly cancels the slight cooling since.”
Again, your basic ignorance in what I said makes me laugh.
This FACT is easy to prove using the wood for trees graphs.
But again, I leave you to verify for yourself, while I laugh at your incompetence. 🙂
The ONLY warming in the whole of the RSS satellite data was due to the 1998 El Nino.
Get used to that fact, child-mind.
LOL, love it when these little warmista trolls show there basic ignorance.
I assure you that both my statements were perfectly correct, and easily provable. 🙂
Oh and sob, I am using Kevin Cowtan’s trend calculator implementation at Sks.
I have just checked.. my statement about 26 years (more exactly 25.7 years) is totally correct.
“I have just checked.. my statement about 26 years (more exactly 25.7 years) is totally correct.”
Please tell me, how do you get this result? What dataset do you use, what is the real result?
Even other sceptic sites do not assume such a long trend without warming.
for example climate depot claims 18 years.
This value was also confirmed by Ross McKitrick a year or so ago.
But poor sob, would not be able to understand that analysis either.
Again, you did not understand the statement did you.
so sad. !
I am not here to teach you basic mathematical understanding.
Try junior high for a start.
“What dataset do you use, what is the real result?’
I use the dataset for RSS from Cowtan’s SkS trend calculator.
You just have to understand the statement.
The statement then takes about 20-30 seconds work to verify.
“I am not here to teach you basic mathematical understanding.
Try junior high for a start.”
It is funny, when people say stuff like this, as i am pretty sure that my formal math education is far ahead of yours.
But of course you are wrong and of course i was able to guess what absurd approach you use to get that result.
It shows very little understanding of the mechanics.
The McKittrick paper is a different thing. He is writing a scientific paper. He can use, what ever weird definition he wants to and then come to conclusions on that definitions. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and he is not making any errors by doing so.
People might discuss, whether his definitions are useful, but for the purpose of that paper, it is absolutely legitimate to use his definition, as it is his paper.
You are in a completely different position, because you are not writing your own scientific paper, but you are making comments on this discussion on this blog.
Your definition (lower bound defines the start of the pause) is completely contradicting the main point made by our host here.
His claim is, that the trend is getting more flat over shorter periods of time. That is absolutely false under your definition, instead the results are getting more extreme, for example warming does increase from about +0.18 (from 1970) to nearly +0.27 since 2005 (NOAA).
The absurdity of your technique can be show easily: BEWARE!
RSS (your top choice of a dataset) supports a massive warming of 1.9°C per decade!
“as i am pretty sure that my formal math education is far ahead of yours.”
Now you are being silly.
My statement is totally true. Live with it. 🙂
There is nothing you can do about it, bluster all you like.
The fact that central zero trend can be taken back 18y 5m and is statistically supportable for 25.7 years really is a poke in the eye for the alarmist/wormest farce.
It shows that warming has ceased.
The fact that the only warming in the whole satellite record comes from the single El Nino event, is also crushes their propaganda and lies.
“to nearly +0.27 since 2005 (NOAA). ”
And yes, a low level con-artist like you would choose to use NOAA/GISS/Schmidt data.
Reality is that the only data sets that aim for an even, untainted temperature measurement all show cooling since 2005.
Those that are under specific instructions to show warming, and have been shown to have been wildly adjusted are the ones you would choose.
Ross McKitrick verified this result last year.
But that would also be way beyond your mathematical understanding
“Or was your plan to cherry pick…. ”
No, I am not cherry-picking anything.
I am stating a pure mathematical result.
And just for you, s.o.b.,
A zero trend is statistically supportable back..
19 years in HadCrut4,
18.5 years in GISS, (even after Gavin recent tampering)
and 21.2 years in the UAH5.6 (I doubt the SkS trend calc is updated to UAH6.0, in which case it would be nearer 25 years)
Note, I am sticking to Kevin’s basic trend calculator so that you can verify these results for yourself, once you figure out the how, why, etc. 😉
21. May 2015 at 11:03 AM
“It is funny, when people say stuff like this, as i am pretty sure that my formal math education is far ahead of yours.”
Now That’s funny. So you are probably a Maths major; otherwise you wouldn’t be so sure about that. SO – you STILL haven’t understood the total crappiness of Climate models? Give back your diploma and ask for a refund! Your university cheated you!
“And yes, a low level con-artist like you would choose to use NOAA/GISS/Schmidt data. ”
I am using your RSS data in exactly the same way that you are using it.
I was using NOAA Data above, because it was a comparison with the original post of this discussion.
Pierre is using NOAA data there and so did i.
But RSS is showing the exactly same thing: a massive increase in the rise of temperature.
since 2005 we see 0.4°C per decade and we can easily get about 1.8°C since 2012 in the RSS dataset.
There is an obvious problem with you method!
The central trend is negative since 2001.
And under your incorrect interpretation, could be cooling at 0.25C/decade.
You still haven’t figured out that my method is pretty much the same as Ross’s.
That’s because you are an idiot.
The ONLY way you can get more than a very slight positive trend in the RSS data is to include the non-CO2 step change of the 1998 El Nino ocean cooling event. (A slight positive decadal trend also comes from the previous El Nino)
Not including the 1998 El Nino, every decadal trend since has been NEGATIVE or ZERO.
Unfortunately, the slight warming out of the LIA appears to have ceased. 🙁
Maybe someone should tell Stefan Rahmstorf that even people within IPCC admits that there is a pause:
Dr. William Collins
Lead Author IPCC AR4 & AR5
“Now, I am hedging a bet because, to be honest with you, if the hiatus is still going on as of the sixth IPCC report, that report is going to have a large burden on its shoulders walking in the door, because recent literature has shown that the chances of having a hiatus 18 of 20 years are vanishingly small.”
Hans von Storch
IPCC Lead Author
“If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”
April 24: On Friday’s CBS Evening News, a NASA scientist made a surprising admission about climate change during a report about an erupting volcano in South America.
Correspondent Michelle Miller turned to Dr. Allegra LeGrande, who detailed how the gases from a volcanic eruption can lead to a reduction in the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth.
Le Grande added that “this is a small component of why we’re not as warm today as the climate models predicted we would be seven years ago.” [video below]
If anyone can show just one land based met thermometer series that has had a thorough microclimate analysis done over decades I might start to take terrestrial data seriously.
In the meantime southern sea surface temp data shows flat since 1997 (including, I gather, an el-nino event) while 2001 to 2014 show a small, but not statistically significant, drop.
Graph here: http://brindabella.id.au/etc/SST-1997-2014.gif
According to longer term Greenland GRIP ice core records, the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of the current Holocene epoch, with millennial average temperatures about 1.8°C lower than its early “Holocene climate optimum” in about 6000 BC. There has been a relatively minor recovery since the Little Ice Age some 300 years ago.
The Holocene interglacial can be divided into two phases. The early Holocene, encompassing the “Climate Optimum”, shows modest cooling of about 0.05°C per millennium up until about 1000 BC, there after the next 3000 year second phase shows much more rapid cooling at a rate of 0.5°C per millennium for the 3 millennia between 1000BC and the present.
Judging by past interglacial periods, such as the previous Eemian epoch which according to the Ice Core record was considerably warmer even than the Holocene “Climate Optimum”, after some 11,000 years the Holocene should be drawing to its close. A climate reversion to full glaciation is therefore foreseeable, if not overdue, in this century, the next century, or this millennium.
So now a continued natural climate change towards a colder climate is more, rather than less, likely. Cooling would lead to more intense and adverse weather. There is good reason to expect this, simply because the overall energy differential between the poles and the tropics can only be greater with cooling and that in itself would lead to less stable atmospheric conditions. In addition to more adverse weather, any coming cooling will lead to very serious deprivation for mankind and the biosphere as a whole. Growing seasons will shorten and less arable land will be capable of crop production.
So it is extreme hubris to expect that mankind, as postulated by the warmist alarmists of the IPCC, could achieve a complete reversal of the world’s climatic progress and achieve an additional +6°C change in the course of the current century. That effect would mean attaining temperatures equivalent to or greater than the maximum of the previous Eemian interglacial epoch.
There are only 3 data sets that attempt to get an even , untainted, spread of temperature data. they are RSS, UAH and USCRN (implemented 2005).
All three show COOLING since the culmination of the 1998 El Nino.
The slight positive temperature trend from the series of strong solar cycles in the second half of last century hasn’t just ceased, it has reversed.
If you look at the 10 year running trend, EVERY running decade since the El Nino has had a negative trend except two, which are basically ZERO
The ONLY way you can show any trend in the whole of RSS is by including the 1998 El Nino step, which was a natural event , nothing to do with CO2.
The slight warming before the El Nino has been cancelled out almost completely with the slight cooling trend since, leave the El Nino as the ONLY warming in the satellite data set.
Most of the warming in Giss and Hadcrut come purely from “adjustments™” and “homogenisation™”. The rest is UHI effects.
There has, thankfully, been a slight continuous warming out of the COLDEST period of the whole of the Holocene (LIA), but unfortunately, that slight warming trend appears to have ceased, .
A book for s.o.b.
Maybe he could learn something. !! (nah, his brain block is fully on)
[…] Während sich das Ausland bereits über Rahmstorfs unentwegte Alarmisten-Possen belustigt…: Stefan Rahmstorf: No pause, anywhere! Quelle: https://notrickszone.com/2015/05/19/there-are-people-who-believe-they-see-unabated-global-warming-in-… […]
[…] No pause, anywhere! By Michael Krueger [Translated by P. Gosselin]. No Tricks Zone, May 19, 2015 https://notrickszone.com/2015/05/19/… Calif. Philosopher Making the ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ Says This Is How Global […]
[…] No pause, anywhere! By Michael Krueger [Translated by P. Gosselin]. No Tricks Zone, May 19, 2015https://notrickszone.com/2015/05/19/…Calif. Philosopher Making the ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ Says This Is How Global Warming […]