The Pause Has Returned.
By Paul Homewood
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001
Hadcrut now have numbers out for February, giving an anomaly of 0.523C, measured against the 1961-90 baseline, slightly down on January’s 0.556C.
This means that the last six months have been below 0.59C.
It is clear that temperatures are settling down at a similar level to the period between 2002 and 2007, following the record El Nino of 2015/16. Bear in mind as well that the degree of accuracy, according to the Hadley Centre, is about +/-0.1C. As such, it cannot be said that there has been any statistically measurable warming since 2001, or indeed previously.
It is possible temperatures may drop further in coming months, with weak La Nina conditions established, although these are predicted to disappear by the summer.
Satellite measurements from UAH also show a similar picture:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
There’s nothing like an accuracy of +/-0.1C for a temperature anomaly that doesn’t exist. It ain’t science as we used to know it.
Don’t underestimate the data adjusters.
Yes, since the average temperature does not exist, how can it be “accurate”?
I cannot measure a wholly imaginary thing.
And measured only in a tiny number of locations on land let alone the 7/8 of the planet that are the oceans and seas. And then you have micro-climate – Kilimanjaro snowcap anyone? UHI?
And as much use as knowing the average of the last ‘n’ years’ lottery results.
Since global warming supposedly depends on heat radiation the mean temperature is not representative. The fourth power of the temperature is relevant so it´s mean value should be recorded.
You beat Monckton to it. But then he is tied up with a climate court case in the US of A.
With temperatures where they are now and a solar minimum over the next few years along with a negative AMO, the pause could be with us for a while, or at least until the next El Nino.
I was looking at this yesterday and was amused that the UAH global anomaly for March 2018 was exactly the same as for March 2002. Both +0.24 C.
Can’t blame ENSO either. Our BoM ENSO page has neutral conditions, now with no forecast of la Nina to cool things down.
Why are we spending so much money on something which isn’t happening?
Should we anticipate a La Nina recurrence soon? Usually a super El Nino is followed soon after by a comparable La Nina. It is already late, but maybe just delayed?
“…La Nina…”
I am afraid that you have both misread the (badly written) BoM page. When they refer to reaching La Nina temperature thresholds, they mean approaching the El Nina / Neutral boundary from the existing La Nina conditions, i.e. going from an anomaly < -0.5 C to one between – 0.5 and + 0.5 C.
There has been a weak, recognized*, La Nina for several months now; and the effect -perhaps 0.1 C – on global UAH temperature anomalies is, in theory, now a factor.
There is little evidence that large episodes of one sort cause large episodes of the opposite sort.
Incidentally, the RSS update for March is + 0.05 C; this is essentially the same as UAH, which was + 0.04 C.
* "Officially", it is always recognized in retrospect. To make the subtle distinction, La Nina CONDITIONS have been present but a La Nina "PERIOD" requires some permanency.
The figures have been plain as anything for at least three months.
Reblogged this on Climatism.
Paul, the thing about your blogs which annoys me is that I can’t Tweet it, or Facebook it. Could you look into this? Please. Its the best way to get your blog out there where it can do some good.
Will do!
“Will do!”
So long as it does not become one of those annoying sites which DEMAND you use Facebook or Google or some telephone app to read it !
Sorted, James
If you page down to the end of each post, there is a “Share This” box.
Just click on Facebook etc to share
Man made warming?
It’s all bollocks,and only politicians and the luvvies in the media/goverment believe it.
Kilimanjaro snows – still there, the Himalayan glaciers ain’t going anywhere as are the polar bears, millions of ‘missing penguins’ rolled up on an ice sheet down in the South Antarctica, the Arctic sea ice is still obscenely healthy, sea levels are nothing of note except pretty flat, (and I could go on – but we all know the fairy tales of misinterpretation, statistical virtuality et bloody cetera) – ie: all of their (alarmunist) ‘predictions’ are utter tosh.
It ain’t man made CO₂ and temperatures are cooling – if you look to the wider picture, and ref ‘Minoan warming’ on a scale of not much (by comparison) the ‘rise’ in T’s since the LIA has been lovely but natural background warming and there’s nothing but nothing to suggest any sort of man made ‘signal’.
ave a gander
ooops,
WUWT: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/31/a-warm-period-by-any-other-name-the-climatic-optimum/
oi nearly fergited it.
Fear of Global Warming is silly.
In addition to space based reflectors, my prefered method because you can set it up to both coll AND heat the planet, there is also a way to cool the earth using chalk (calcium carbonate).
See this recent < 7 min TED talk for more.
You write “It is clear that temperatures are settling down at a similar level to the period between 2002 and 2007, following the record El Nino of 2015/16. ”
I think you meant 1998.
Never mind, I now see how the sentence is constructed
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
6th April 2018
Basically, much of the longer term history of global temperatures can be viewed as a long term continuous warming superimposed upon a 60 year cycle of alternate warming and cooling. Thus we have cooling from 1820-1849, warming from 1850-1879, cooling from 1880-1909, warming from 1910-1939, cooling from 1940-1969 and warming from 1970-1999.
The “pause” is simply the down leg of the cycle superimposed on this same longer term warming. In practice, it has not, as yet, been a real pause but more of a slowing down in the underlying warming. In fact, if we examine the UAH data up to March 2018, we find that there is no period of 7 years or more ending in March 2018 where the trend using a linear regression is other than a warming one.
This conclusion applies whether or not we simply use the month of March or the pseudo year of 12 months from the previous April(s).
That just cherry picks start dates.
Bullschitt!
I have used every possible start date for the UAH series which gives me at least 7 years’ worth of data.
The end dats is the latest for which we have evidence.
“…the longer term warming…”
Which may itself be the rising part of an still longer cycle. If this longer cycle (solar cause?) turns down while the shorter cycle (ocean conveyor belt?) is still in a downward phase the various measures of temperature anomalies will all turn negative – in time.
Of course, the idea of an “average global temperature” – with its wiggles, determining the life prospects of every living thing – will still be nonsensical.
Yes. The “longer term warming” could indeed be part of a longer cycle. In fact I think that some, at least, of it is.
However, It is most unlikely to be of simple solar origin. There are many reasons for this – but I will deal with the two simplest:-
1) TSI shows a very pronounced 11 year cycle. If variation in the sun’s output were a major cause of temperature change we would expect this cycle to be strongly represented in the various temperature series. Yet, for all practical purposes, it is virtually undetectable therein.
2) If solar output were the main cause of temperature change, we would expect to see the effect much more strongly when the sun is actually shining. In fact, we find that nights tend to warm faster than days. UM !!!
All the warming followed the cooling of the Little Ice Age.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
To the climate troughers, the Pause is like Lord Voldemort –
He Who Must Not Be Named 😂
Isn’t it just unbeleviably tragic that we AGW sceptics must wish for precisely what we don’t want, to disprove a phenomenon that doesn’t exist.
“…tragic…”
Yes; but it is a bit like hoping Gwynyth Paltrow gets so sick that she has no time to advise women to sit on steaming kettles.