By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The new break continues. Until the end of December 2020 it was 5 years 4 months. It was 5 years 6 months until the end of January 2021. There are 5 years 7 months until the end of February 2021:
By December 2020, for which I have data for two satellite and two terrestrial datasets, UAH and RSS showed the shortest pause, while HadCRUT4 shows the longest at 6 years and 6 months:
The difference between the lengths of the new break in versions 4 (6 years 6 months) and 5 (5 years 8 months) of the HadCRUT dataset up to December 2020 is a whopping 10 months, with the newer version wiping out the new break. As Willis Eschenbach recently emphasized, the manipulations between versions 4 and 5 mainly affect the last few years: as an exception, the earlier years of the HadCRUT data set were left comparatively unadjusted. Could it be that the emergence of this new hiatus makes the usual suspects pause for thought?
The two satellite datasets UAH (trustworthy) and RSS (operated by a “scientist” who uses hate speech and names those of us whose research points to small and harmless global warming “climate deniers”) continue to show very different warming trends. From 1979 to 2020, RSS shows 58% more warming than UAH at 2.16 ° C / century equivalent. Billed? Schmettled.
Diagrams are below. Out of interest I also added the diagram of the temperature record for Central England from 1979 to 2020, which as a regional record shows how trivial the trend is compared to the annual temperature cycle from winter to summer. It shows a warming equivalent to nearly 3 ° C / century, but that is a regional rather than a global mean, and the discrepancy between the regional and global averages is not entirely unexpected given the forward movement. CETR showed a warming of 4.33 ° C / century equivalent in the 40 years 1694-1733 and has not shown warming at or above this rate in any period in 40 years, so the latest rate of warming is nothing unprecedented.
I bet which of the various records will be the next to come up with elaborate excuses for the next tantrum, resulting in a further increase in the apparent rate of warming.
Now that we have HadCRUT5, I finally took uncertainty intervals for each of the five main climatological parameters (green) and added them to the table that shows how the equilibrium double CO2 sensitivity (ECS) is derived from them:
The current generation of models predicts ECS 3.7 [2.0, 5.7] K. In reality, ECS will be based on real-world observation rather than artfully profitable speculation 1.0 [0.8, 5.4] K. And that is far too little to require a reduction at all. Cancel COP26! Closure IPCC! The predictions of climatology are about four times as real.
But can it really be that easy to infer ECS? Don’t we need complex models that cost billions? Don’t we need IPCC reports with several thousand pages every few years? No we don’t. The equations for the energy imbalance factor Γfor the implicit anthropogenic equilibrium sensitivity ΔE1 in the industrial age from 1850 to 2020 and then for ECS ΔE2While very simple, they are a sensible and robust way of reliably deriving ECS from their own current mainstream data, which has been updated in a series of papers due in time for the IPCC’s sixth assessment report.
The last line of the table is particularly interesting. It derives the unit’s feedback response – the response per degree of direct warming – from 1850 to 2020 (U1). Then compare it U1 with the feedback U2 from 2020 to warming by a drive that corresponds to the CO2 doubled compared to 2020.
U1, which is actually negative in the middle range with -0.06, which indicates a very slightly negative net feedback in the industrial age and not the roughly positive net feedback presented in the models, is 1 less than the system gain factor of the industrial age A1the ratio of period equilibrium sensitivity ΔE1 for period reference sensitivity ΔR1, Where ΔR1 is 0.3 times the period of anthropogenic forcing ΔQ1.
There is hardly more than 2 degrees difference between the temperatures in 1850 and twice the CO2 compared to 2020. U2the unit’s feedback response after 2020 included in the model projected ECS should be about the same as U1.
At most the ratio X = U2 / | U1 | of the feedback responses from the two units should not exceed about 1.1. But the interval of the unit-feedback-response ratios X. The predictions of the global warming models are astounding and obviously untenable 39 [14, 69].
We charged something just for fun X. would be if the sillier and more extreme papers predicting 10 degrees ECS were true. Then X. would exceed 130: that is, X. would exceed any reasonable value by two orders of magnitude.
Couldn’t climatologists have done these simple sums for themselves and realized how far their profitable but harmful predictions have been exceeded? Why did they ever imagine that the mid-range ECS would be around 3 or 4 degrees when in reality it will be a harmless and beneficial 1 degree (and just so much on the generous assumption that official greenhouse gas forcing estimates don’t are? overrated)?
The reason for this is that they envisioned that the natural 32 degree greenhouse effect had only two components: 8 degree reference sensitivity to pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases and 24 degree feedback reaction to it (see e.g. Lacis et al., 2010). Based on this, they assumed that 1 degree twice the CO2 reference sensitivity would be around 4 degrees ECS – and the mid-range prediction of the current models is actually close to 4 degrees.
They had forgotten that much of the total pre-industrial feedback reaction of 24 degrees was not due to the pre-industrial non-condensing greenhouse gases, but rather to the 25 times higher emission temperature that would be near the surface even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air at the beginning. The greater the feedback reaction to the sun’s heat, the smaller the feedback reaction to the greenhouse gases.
Bless their little cotton socks, they had forgotten that the sun was shining. This strikingly elemental flaw is why the world is in a childish panic about global warming.