The pause continues – Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months

[francisco]

The pause continues – Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months

The pause continues – Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming...

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to May 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 9 months.

...The hiatus period of 17 years 9 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend. But the length of the pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed...

Read more:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/...till-no-global-warming-for-17-years-9-months/

 

[mrsat_98]

http://www.gematrix.org/?word=warming+lie

 

[Dr.3D]

I just know somebody is going to come into this thread and argue, saying..... 'there doesn't have to be any increase in temperature for there to be climate change.'

 

[Zippyjuan]

Chart is being misread. It does not show no global warming. The 0.0 degree line means that the year had average temperatures. There are only six years on the chart which show "normal" or below normal temperatures out of the last seventeen years meaning at least eleven were hotter than normal. Nearly all of the points on that chart are "above normal" temperatures.

 

[JK/SEA]

maybe the Earth is warming from the INSIDE...

stick a thermometer in your backyard, report the results to Al Gore and Company.

 

[francisco]

Chart is being misread. It does not show no global warming. The 0.0 degree line means that the year had average temperatures. There are only six years on the chart which show "normal" or below normal temperatures out of the last seventeen years meaning at least eleven were hotter than normal. Nearly all of the points on that chart are "above normal" temperatures.

WRONG.

The chart is of the anomolies (departures from average).

The area of excursions above the zero line (dead average)--warmer than normal--is statistically not greater than the area of excursions below (colder than normal)

You don't just count points, you consider the amplitudes of the excursions and the length of time they persist.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The chart is of the anomolies (departures from average).

Exactly what I said. And nearly all of the points for the past 17 years are above the average (0.0 line). Thus temperatures for the last 17 years have been warmer than normal with a few exceptions.

 

[francisco]

...The chart is of the anomolies (departures from average)...

Exactly what I said. And nearly all of the points for the past 17 years are above the average (0.0 line). Thus temperatures for the last 17 years have been warmer than normal with a few exceptions.

Apparently you do not understand what I was trying to convey below that

...The area of excursions above the zero line (dead average)--warmer than normal--is statistically not greater than the area of excursions below (colder than normal)

You don't just count points, you consider the amplitudes of the excursions and the length of time they persist.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Yes- higher above or lower below the zero line means a greater deviation from the average. And remember- the dark blue line is NOT the zero line. It shows the average deviation from normal- looks like about 0.23 degrees above average which would be about 0.75 degrees Farenheit- for the entire 17 year period.

Curious- they say they have data going back to 1979- why pick just since 1996 (and not even that whole year)? Perhaps it did not all fit what they wanted to show?

 

[puppetmaster]

The trend is zero.....change

 

[francisco]

maybe the Earth is warming from the INSIDE...

Actually, it is, from radioactive decay. I'm guessing that you know that, but putting it down for others who may not. That's what melts the rock into the magma under volcanoes.

The great intellect Al was off by a couple orders of magnitude, though, when he said it was a million degrees inside the Earth.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Recent estimates put the temperature of the core at about 6,000 degrees celsius- 1,000 degrees hotter than previously thought. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142355.htm

 

[Dr.3D]

Recent estimates put the temperature of the core at about 6,000 degrees celsius- 1,000 degrees hotter than previously thought. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142355.htm

Here we have all the energy we could ever want, but still haven't found a way to get to it.

 

[AFPVet]

... um... man made "climate change versus... not...." Um... yeah... no... ummmmmm... I don't think our meager vehicle smog output contributes too much—when the sun, volcanic eruptions, and nuclear fallout, make up considerably more.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Yeah- we got lots of volcanos and nuclear bombs going off these days.

 

[FindLiberty]

The Fukushima Daiichi meltdown may turn out be the next best thing to save Inner Earth since Obama's recent discovery of latent heat .

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Here we have all the energy we could ever want, but still haven't found a way to get to it.

We do have ways to tap into that.

Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the Earth. Thermal energy is the energy that determines the temperature of matter. The geothermal energy of the Earth's crust originates from the original formation of the planet (20%) and from radioactive decay of minerals (80%).[1][2] The geothermal gradient, which is the difference in temperature between the core of the planet and its surface, drives a continuous conduction of thermal energy in the form of heat from the core to the surface.

From hot springs, geothermal energy has been used for bathing since Paleolithic times and for space heating since ancient Roman times, but it is now better known for electricity generation. Worldwide, 11,400 megawatts (MW) of geothermal power is online in 24 countries in 2012.[5] An additional 28 gigawatts of direct geothermal heating capacity is installed for district heating, space heating, spas, industrial processes, desalination and agricultural applications in 2010.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

 

[juleswin]

Chart is being misread. It does not show no global warming. The 0.0 degree line means that the year had average temperatures. There are only six years on the chart which show "normal" or below normal temperatures out of the last seventeen years meaning at least eleven were hotter than normal. Nearly all of the points on that chart are "above normal" temperatures.

If you draw a trend line in a graph and you get a vertical line, that tell you there is not change i.e. said data is not trending up or down. That is what is means by no global warming in the last 17yrs.

 

[klamath]

Yes- higher above or lower below the zero line means a greater deviation from the average. And remember- the dark blue line is NOT the zero line. It shows the average deviation from normal- looks like about 0.23 degrees above average which would be about 0.75 degrees Farenheit- for the entire 17 year period.

Curious- they say they have data going back to 1979- why pick just since 1996 (and not even that whole year)? Perhaps it did not all fit what they wanted to show?

maybe because it is talking about the last 17 years, those 17 years when we were supposed to be in the hockey stick temperature increase. If this is not true why are they coming out with studies trying to explain why the temperature hasn't increased like the models predicted?
Why are the graphs of the AGW people always starting from the bottom of the little ice age. Why don't they start them when grapes grew in England and people settled Iceland? Perhaps it did not all fit what they wanted to show.
Yes without a doubt the global temperatures have risen in the last 150 years. Yes without a doubt the temperatures of the last 17 years have been hotter than the 150 year mean average but the temperature has reached a plateau. Is it a ledge or a peak or a prairie we don't know? What is cast in doubt is the models never predicted this plateau, in fact they predicted the opposite. Also the models can't seem to get a grasp on why the drop in temperature after the war when deforestation and Co2 output was massive.

 

[Cleaner44]

Chart is being misread. It does not show no global warming. The 0.0 degree line means that the year had average temperatures. There are only six years on the chart which show "normal" or below normal temperatures out of the last seventeen years meaning at least eleven were hotter than normal. Nearly all of the points on that chart are "above normal" temperatures.

When I counted, I only came up with 66 of the 119 points on that chart being "above normal". What am I missing?