The Global Temperature Standstill Simply Explained
By Paul Homewood
I ran a post a couple of days ago about the standstill in global temperatures. Whilst there has been no statistically significant trend on any dataset since 1998, it is often argued that this is purely because of cherry picking the warm, El Nino year of 1998 as a starting point.
As I pointed out, the UK Met Office addressed this issue in their 2013 paper, “The recent pause in global warming: What are the potential causes”, when they stated:
The start of the current pause is difficult to determine precisely. Although 1998 is often quoted as the start of the current pause, this was an exceptionally warm year because of the largest El Niño in the instrumental record. This was followed by a strong La Niña event and a fall in global surface temperature of around 0.2oC (Figure 1), equivalent in magnitude to the average decadal warming trend in recent decades. It is only really since 2000 that the rise in global surface temperatures has paused.
When trends are applied to such short periods of time, there is a very real danger that anomalous events, such as the 1998 El Nino and the double La Nina which followed, will give misleading results. It is therefore perfectly sensible to run a trend from 2001, which fortuitously was an ENSO neutral year.
We can do this with the satellite sets, UAH and RSS, and the surface ones HADCRUT4 and GISS, using the Woodfortrees system.
We can see on all sets that the rate of warming between 1979 and 2000 was much greater than seen since. We also see that RSS give a cooling trend since 2001, HADCRUT is flat, and UAH very slightly up. None of these would be regarded as statistically significant. GISS, you may note, gives a slightly larger trend than the others.
There have been, of course, ups and downs since 2001, and it would be easy to pick starting points to show warming or cooling on any dataset. But, of course, this is not really the point.
As the Met Office correctly point out, we can go back to at least 2001 and say there has been no warming since. (And certainly on RSS even further).
And this is all despite El Nino conditions since last April.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Notice how Giss and HadCrut climb steeply after Gavin took over from Hansen in early 2013.
you can play around as much as you like, but, excluding UAH, all data sets, also for the high seas, shows a downtrend since 2002.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2016/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
My own dataset shows a decline of 0.015K/annum since 2000
= -0.2K
RSS shows it is the nearest to the correct result, = – 0.1K
The problem is global representation. [only my own data set is nearest to the correct result]
GISS is up since 2002
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2002/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend
Down since 2002?
Hardly surprising as 2002/3 was a moderate El Nino period.
Try using 2006 as a start – all sets have an up trend.
There is something that you have to understand here. Obviously, even though the Gliessberg exists, it essentially consists of 4 Hale cycles or 8 Schwabe cycles.
You can see where we are here (cycle 24, Schwabe) :
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/pad_sides_large/public/top_news/sunspot_1.gif?itok=JcreaffZ
So, obviously, it would be wrong to look at the data from 2006.
As sunspots go up, so the sun gets less brighter, so will solar magnetic field strengths go up, and it releases less of the most energetic particles to form less ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides TOA>
It seems therefore fine to me, to look at the data from 2002 onward.
Energy-in started declining in 1995, earth reached max. out put (means) somewhere in 1998/1999.
Hence force, from the new Millennium temperatures will keep falling.
Trust my results, more than anyone else’s. The majority of the “climate scientists” are all still walking in the darkness of their own folly that they created to make people feel guilty about driving a car….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2016/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
I cannot get the picture to show here,by pasting, like Paul did, yet I did use “copy image URL, which usually does work for me.
I noticed something else. It seems only RSS is updated in WFT. There must be at least 3 months missing on the other data sets….
Thanks, Paul.
To me, it was the inflection in all the global temperature data sets which indicated that a change had happened after the ENSO events immediately following the great El Niño of 1998.
@Paul
of all these [global] data sets, which do you think has been globally balanced?
i.e.
1) equal stations or measuring points, NH and SH
2) all results from stations / measuring points (by satellites), balanced, close to zero degrees, by latitude
3) all results from measuring points spread 70/30 @sea and inland, because that will equalize certain weather patterns
(Longitude does not matter, when looking at the average global change in T per annum).
Actually, I should add a 4th factor, which you know about.
4) Avoid stations from the Anglo-Saxon countries, which include, Australia, UK, Holland etc. Somehow they feel some responsibility to “adjust” original data to fall in line “what everybody knows: global warming is for real” . e.g.
when I reported serious cooling in AU, I found later that some data were removed in the record of BOM. In Gibraltar, I could not tie up the results for minima with the surrounding stations in Spain and Marocco.Somebody in England did some systematic manipulation of data to show that it is minima pushing up means [which would be in line with AGW theory].
There is no global warming./ Currently, for the next 2 decades there will only be global cooling.
Pity you don’t want to report on my results.
Even the warming sets don’t cut it for AGW; there’s b/g post-LIA warming which must be accounted for before you can see any A in GW..
@Paul
There is something that you have to understand. Obviously, even though the Gleissberg exists, it essentially consists of 4 Hale cycles or 8 Schwabe cycles.
You can see where we are here (cycle 24, Schwabe) :
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/pad_sides_large/public/top_news/sunspot_1.gif?itok=JcreaffZ
So, obviously, it would be wrong to look at the data from 2006.
As sunspots go up, so the sun gets less brighter, so will solar magnetic field strengths go up, and it releases less of the most energetic particles to form less ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides TOA, to me, to look at the data from 2002 onward.You agree?
Energy-in started declining in 1995, earth reached max. out put (means) somewhere in 1998/1999.
Hence force, from the new Millennium temperatures will keep falling.
Trust my results, more than anyone else’s. The majority of the “climate scientists” are all still walking in the darkness of their own folly that they created to make people feel guilty about driving a car….
As sunspots go up, so the sun gets less brighter, so will solar magnetic field strengths go up, and it releases less of the most energetic particles to form less ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides TOA, to me, to look at the data from 2002 onward.You agree?
should read
As sunspots go up, so the sun gets less brighter, so will solar magnetic field strengths go up, and it releases less of the most energetic particles to form less ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides TOA,
So to me, to look at the data from 2002 onward is OK, You agree?
i might be wrong about RSS, the change since 2000 might be statistically significant