Search Results for: pause

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/03/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-8-years-9-months/ By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley The New Pause has lengthened to 8 years 9 months. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH monthly satellite global-temperature dataset shows no global warming from July 2015 to March 2023. As usual, this site is just about the only place where this continuing failure of global temperatures to do as they are told is reported. The start and end dates of the New Pause are not cherry-picked. The end date is the present; the start date is the farthest back one can reach and still find a zero trend. It is what it is. For comparison, here is the entire dataset for 44 years 4 months since December 1978. It shows a less than terrifying long-run warming rate equivalent to 1.3 degrees/century, of which 0.3 K has already occurred since January 2021, leaving just 1 K to go (on the current trend) until 2100, by which time reserves of coal, oil and gas will be largely exhausted. The fact that, over the third of a century since IPCC (1990), global warming is proving to be so slower than the 0.3 degrees/decade that IPCC had then confidently predicted (and still predicts today) is relevant to a question posed to two hapless representatives of the current U.S. maladministration by Senator John Kennedy when he skewered them at a recent hearing. The Senator began by asking Dr Robert Litterman, the chairman of the climate-related market risk subcommittee of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, how long he had been studying the climate question. Answer: 15 years. Next, Dr Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum. Answer: about 25 years. Senator Kennedy: “Dr Litterman, how much will it cost to make the United States of America carbon-neutral by 2050?” Litterman: “I don’t know, sir.” Senator Kennedy: “So you’re advocating that we do these things but you don’t know the ultimate cost?” Litterman: “Yes, absolutely, I certainly don’t know the ultimate cost and it’s very uncertain. It depends on innovations, it depends on …” Senator Kennedy: “I’m just trying to lay a foundation here to understand your expert testimony. Dr Holtz-Eakin, do you know how much it will cost to make the United States of America carbon-neutral by 2050?” Holtz-Eakin: “Depends how you do it. If we do it all with the Federal budget …” Senator Kennedy: “Public and private dollars. It’s ultimately private dollars anyway.” Holtz-Eakin: “I agree.” Senator Kennedy: “So, how much?” Holtz-Eakin: “You’re going to look at $50 trillion.” Senator Kennedy: “$50 trillion?” Holtz-Eakin: “Yes.” Senator Kennedy: “OK, thank you. If we make the United States of America carbon-neutral by 2050, by spending $50 trillion, which you’re advocating, I gather …” Holtz-Eakin: “No.” Senator Kennedy: “OK, strike that last part. I’m wrong. You’re not advocating it. You’re advocating something.” Holtz-Eakin: “If you’re going to do something, do something smart: that’s what I’m advocating.” Senator Kennedy: “If we spend $50 trillion to make the United States of America carbon-neutral by 2050, how much will that lower world temperatures?” [1] Holtz-Eakin: “I can’t say, because I don’t know what China and India and the rest of the world has done.” Senator Kennedy: “Have you heard anybody from the Biden administration say how much it would lower world temperatures?” [2] Holtz-Eakin: “No.” Senator Kennedy: “Does anybody know how much it will lower world temperatures? [Pause] No?” [3] Holtz-Eakin: “No one can know for sure.” Senator Kennedy: “OK. Dr Litterman, if we spend $50 trillion, or however much it takes, to make the United States of America carbon-neutral by 2050, how much will it lower world temperatures?” [4] Litterman: “Senator, that depends on the rest of the world. We have to work with the rest of the world. We’re in this together. It’s one world. We can’t put a wall around the United States and say …” Senator Kennedy: “What if we spend $50 trillion, Europe co-operates, most Western democracies co-operate, but India and China don’t? How much will our $50 trillion lower world temperature?” [5] Litterman: “We’re in this together, Senator. We have to get the world to work together.” Senator Kennedy: “I understand. I get that. How much will it lower world temperatures?”[6] Litterman: “If China and India do not help? I don’t know.” Let us answer Senator Kennedy’s six-times-posed and six-times-unanswered question. It is one of the central questions in the climate debate, but no one in Parliament on this side of the pond would have had the wit, the courage or the persistence to ask it and go on asking it. I continue to be impressed with the calibre of your statesmen compared with our politicians. To answer this question, we shall use only mainstream, midrange data from scientific sources that the “Democrats” would regard as suitable. First, the near-straight-line rate at which global anthropogenic CO2-equivalent emissions have grown since the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990 is shown above. That business-as-usual rate will be likely to continue, since most nations continue to expand their combustion of coal, oil and gas. The global Annual Greenhouse-Gas Index, compiled by the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, shows that, despite costly measures taken chiefly by Western nations to abate their emissions, the radiative forcing driven by global greenhouse-gas emissions has continued to increase since 1990 at a near-straight-line rate of 1/30th unit per year. Thus, no effect of existing global emissions-abatement measures, estimated by McKinsey Consulting last year as costing $5.6 trillion a year, is yet discernible. Secondly, the near-linear uptrend in anthropogenic forcing will continue, given the expansion of coal-fired power in nations such as India, China (now building 43 new coal-fired stations and planning to build still more) and Pakistan (which in early 2023 announced that it would quadruple its coal-fired generating capacity). In the 27 years 2023-2049, a further 27/30ths of a unit (0.9 units) will arise on business as usual. But if all nations were to move in a straight line towards net zero by 2050, half of those 0.9 units – or 0.45 units – would be abated. Thirdly, the medium-term rate of global warming per unit of anthropogenic forcing is the ratio of the 1.8 C midrange medium-term 2xCO2 transient climate response, (TCR, above), and the 3.93 W m–2 effective 2xCO2 forcing (ERF, below): i.e., 0.458 K W–1 m2. Fourthly, adjustment is made for the fact that global warming since 1990 has proven to be less than half the midrange decadal rate that was then predicted – and continues to be predicted today. The observed decadal global-warming rate since 1990, using the satellite global-temperature dataset maintained by the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has been only 0.136 C decade–1: IPCC (1990) made predictions of global warming based on four emissions scenarios A-D, in descending order of predicted anthropogenic emissions. The scenario B trend-line in CO2-equivalent forcing from 1990-2025 (ibid., fig. 2.4B) was identical to the trend-line assuming constant annual emissions after 1990 (ibid., fig. A.15). In reality, however, by 2023 emissions had increased by some 53% compared with 1990. Thus, in the 33 years since 1990, Scenario A has proven very much closer to outturn than B-D. Under Scenario A (the business-as-usual scenario), IPCC predicted midrange global warming of 0.3 C decade–1, or 3 C to 2100, and also 3 C final doubled-CO2 warming. Accordingly, multiplying by 0.136 / 0.3, or 0.453, reduces the predicted warming per unit of anthropogenic influence to match observation. The above calculations, based on mainstream data, are then combined in a simple equation. The 27/30ths degree uptrend in anthropogenic influence over the next 27 years is halved to allow all nations to move in a straight line from here to net zero by 2050 rather than attaining net zero immediately. That anthropogenic forcing is then converted to global temperature change prevented, which is in turn reduced in line with the shortfall of real-world medium-term warming per decade since 1990 against then-predicted midrange medium-term global warming. Global warming prevented, even if all nations succeeded in attaining net zero emissions by 2050, which they will not, would be less than one-tenth of a Celsius degree: Even if the US, responsible for 15% of global emissions, were able to attain net zero by 2050, its contribution would reduce global temperature by less than one-seventieth of a degree. That is the answer to Senator Kennedy’s question – the answer that “Democrat” climate “experts” with 15 and 25 years’ experience were altogether unable (or unwilling) to answer. Does this infinitesimal reduction in global temperature represent value for money? Let us use Mr Holtz-Eakin’s $60 trillion cost of U.S. net zero as a starting-point. For it implies that the cost of global net zero would be $400 trillion. Given that McKinsey Consulting puts the capex cost alone at $275 trillion, and that opex is 2-3 times capex, the total cost could well be $900 trillion, more than twice Mr Holtz-Eakin’s plucked-out-of-the-air guesstimate. In that event, each $1 billion spent on the futile attempt to attain net zero emissions would prevent approximately one ten-millionth of a degree of global warming – the worst value for money in history. I have set out these new calculations in some detail because once it is more widely known it will help to bring the climate nonsense to an end.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/03/the-new-pause-lengthens-again-101-months-and-counting/ By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley As the third successive year of la Niña settles into its stride, the New Pause has lengthened by another month (and very nearly by two months). There has been no trend in the UAH global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies since September 2014: 8 years 5 months and counting. As always, the New Pause is not a prediction: it is a measurement. It represents the farthest back one can go using the world’s most reliable global mean temperature dataset without finding a warming trend. The sheer frequency and length of these Pauses provide a graphic demonstration, readily understandable to all, that It’s Not Worse Than We Thought – that global warming is slow, small, harmless and, on the evidence to date at any rate, strongly net-beneficial. Again as always, here is the full UAH monthly-anomalies dataset since it began in December 1978. The uptrend remains steady at 0.134 K decade–1. The gentle warming of recent decades, during which nearly all of our influence on global temperature has arisen, is a very long way below what was originally predicted – and still is predicted. In IPCC (1990), on the business-as-usual Scenario A emissions scenario that is far closer to outturn than B, C or D, predicted warming to 2100 was 0.3 [0.2, 0.5] K decade–1, implying 3 [2, 5] K ECS, just as IPCC (2021) predicts. Yet in the 33 years since 1990 the real-world warming rate has been only 0.137 K decade–1, showing practically no acceleration compared with the 0.134 K decade–1 over the whole 44-year period since 1978. IPCC’s midrange decadal-warming prediction was thus excessive by 0.16 [0.06, 0.36] K decade–1,  or 120% [50%, 260%]. Why, then, the mounting hysteria – in Western nations only – about the imagined and (so far, at any rate) imaginary threat of global warming rapid enough to be catastrophic?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/02/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-7-years-11-months/ By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley The New Pause, notwithstanding the much-publicized heatwaves in Britain and some other countries, has lengthened by another month to 7 years 11 months. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH satellite lower-troposphere monthly global mean temperature anomalies has settled into a steady state that may yet be perturbed either by another la Niña later this year, which would lengthen the New Pause still further or, in the next year or two, a new el Niño event, which would shorten it or – if the spike were big enough – extinguish it altogether. As the indefatigable Eric Worrall reported here a couple of weeks back, the Forces of Darkness are becoming concerned at the lengthening of the New Pause. They are beginning to write the nervous little pieces that they wrote when the previous Great Pause began to become significant. I well remember the first time I drew the attention of the U.S. House of Representatives to the fact that, at that time (in 2007 or thereby), as now, there had been no global warming for seven or eight years: in fact, there had been a small cooling. The news that there had been cooling during that period caused consternation among the “Democrats”. Against me was Tom Karl, then in charge of the clattering train at NOAA. He was as consternated as his fellow “Democrats” at the news that there had been no global warming for so long a time. He furiously tried to undermine the result by saying that it had not been proper for me to average the temperature anomalies of four distinct global-temperature datasets, one of which was his own. I countered that it made no difference either way, since all four of the datasets I had used, including that of NOAA, had shown a global cooling for the previous seven or eight years. Eventually Rep. Joe Barton (R: TX), then chairman of the Republican minority caucus on the House energy committee, intervened and ordered both sides to write to the committee justifying their stances. For me, that was easy: I sent individual graphs of the four datasets on which I had relied, including that of NOAA, which all showed cooling. Tom Karl was splutteringly furious, but the data are the data. “It is what it is,” as Roy Spencer puts it. At the end of that Great Pause, in November 2015, Senator Cruz (R: TX) showed our HadCRUT4 graph to the Senate, again provoking fury from the “Democrats”. At that time the inconvenient and unpredicted truth was there had been no global warming for 18 years 9 months. If, therefore, the new Pause continues to lengthen satisfactorily, and if – as now seems certain – the crippling consequences of the economic hara-kiri that the West has allowed certain hostile alien powers to inveigle it into perpetrating become all too painfully apparent even to the “Democrat” electorate, the fact underlying these long Pauses will become known not just to the open-minded few but to all, whether the climate Communists like it or not. That fact is that the rate of global warming predicted by Hansen in 1988 and then by IPCC in 1990 is simply not occurring. Nothing like. In 1990 IPCC had confidently predicted warming equivalent to 0.34 K/decade in the period to 2030. Well, we are now already well into 2022, almost a third of a century after that over-excited prediction, and the observed warming was not the 1.1 K that ought to have occurred by now but just 0.45 K: Thus, IPCC had predicted almost two and a half times the warming that has actually occurred in the third of a century since its prediction. Yet, as Dr Roy Spencer has just brilliantly pointed out at his website, the anthropogenic forcings are continuing to follow a pattern that would lead to a forcing equivalent to a doubling of CO2 concentration by the end of the 21st century, approximately in line with Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5, and not the deliberately extreme 8.5. Yet the currently-predicted warming for a forcing equivalent to that from doubled CO2, in the CMIP6 models (Zelinka et al. 2020), is 4 K/century equivalent, or 0.4 K/decade equivalent, up a little on the 0.34 K/decade equivalent predicted in IPCC (1990). It has long been obvious from the temperature record that the rate of global warming is nothing like what was originally predicted: and yet the predicted warming in the models has officially increased. The decadal equivalent of the currently-predicted centennial rate of warming is now about thrice the observed decadal rate of warming. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. There is a reason why the models continue to predict about thrice as much global warming as is actually happening. But I trust that regular readers will not need me to tell them what that reason is. Meanwhile, the temperature in England rose above 40 Cº one blissful day in July. Since I am used to living in hot countries, I astonished the assembled company by wearing a tweed jacket throughout the day. I’d normally have worn my heavy leather biker jacket, the best protection against hot weather, but I’m away from home just now. But I was the only person present who did not complain of the heat, for I was comfortably warm, not unbearably hot. I leave it to the reader to work out the sound science behind how that works. Try it next time the weather is well hot, and you will see what I mean. I was once in Texas, where it was a little hot. I was wearing my biker jacket. Daisy the barmaid was baffled. I told her to put her hand between me and the jacket. She did so and was astonished at how cool it was. Us Brits have the neatest chat-up lines. Of course, the unspeakable BBC blubbed about how dozens of people were going to be killed by the heat (in a good cold spell the weather can wipe out tens of thousands at a time). But there is a growing impatience among the electorate at the one-sidedness of the global-warming argument, and at the failure of the BBC or any of the major channels to give both sides of the story. We are going to dump the BBC from our viewing altogether next month, as millions of others have already done. No more license fee for us. Unfortunately, the relentless propaganda, and the increasingly vicious silencing of all who would otherwise have dared to speak out, have had their effect. I have recently discovered that neither the British intelligence services nor the Cabinet Office have the slightest idea that the global warming nonsense is not merely peddled assiduously by the Communist traffic-light tendency – the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds. It originated in the disinformation directorate of the KGB. But today’s spooks have no idea. One of them, who did not realize that my hearing is sharp, was overheard to say that I was “very Right-wing.” Moi? Zut alors! Though the anti-social media giants will continue their campaign of outright Communist censorship, by a growing variety of samizdat methods the truth will emerge. Not long now, I think. The climate nonsense has almost run its course. It was all very well when there was little cost to it. But now that households all over the West are going bankrupt trying to pay their power bills and blackouts are only averted by panic measures, the people won’t stand for climate Communism much longer. In Britain on one recent day, the national grid paid more than $11,000 per MWh (or getting on for 400 times good old coal-fired power at $30 per MWh) to keep the lights on in London. And all this insanity on the basis of an elementary error of physics.