No Statistically Significant Global Warming in 9 Years and 3 Months – Increased by that?

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The new pause is long and long. On the UAH dataset, the most reliable of which, there was no global warming for seven years:

On the HadCRUT4 dataset, using the published monthly uncertainty period, it is possible to go back 9 years and 3 months – from August 2012 to October 2021 – before any warming was found. global is statistically significant. The area of ​​no statistical significance is shown in light blue below. Since before the last but one IPCC report, there has been no statistically significant global warming:

In 7 years and 8 months – a month longer than the previous month’s data showed – there was no global warming on the HadCRUT4 dataset. The least squares linear regression trend has a rate lower than zero:

As always, the trend shown on the Pause graph is calculated over the longest period of time, relative to the most recent month for which data is available, where the least squares linear regression trend is not positive.

Given the succession of long periods of no global warming, each beginning with a strong el Niño, it is not surprising that the rate of global warming is proving to be so much lower than one-third of the average per decade- the date of warming predicted confidently by the IPCC in 1990 First review report:

The importance of a succession of long periods without any global warming, of which the current Pause event is the most recent, should not be underestimated. It is reasonable to draw from such lengths to draw the conclusion that, since the climate system is thermally stable by nature, the radiative imbalances inferred from satellite data are either exaggerated or may have a smaller effect on climate sensitivity than is currently imagined.

No small part of the reason why some strongly oppose the fact that there has been no statistically significant global warming in almost a decade is that it can no longer be reliably maintained that “it’s worse than we’ve ever done, Bubba”.

In fact, there is nothing worse than at the time of the previous IPeCaC review report in 2013. But the rhetorical fallacies must – and have been – countered, with totalitarian regulators like that of the UK and worry about an imagined “climate emergency”.

Even in rural Cornwall, the local government flashily declared a “climate emergency”. However, there is no more “climate emergency” today than there was in 2012, so the only reason to declare it now is not that it is correct (because it is not) but that it is appropriate. politically.

Entire industries have been and will soon be out – mining, distribution and production of coal (and therefore steel and aluminum); oil and gas exploration and production; internal combustion vehicle; a wide range of downstream industries and an increasing number of high-energy-intensive industries. But only in the West classe policy silly enough or aspirational enough to engage in this economic behavior.

The main beneficiaries of the West’s self-destruction are Russia and China. Russia, which has a significant influence on the ranks of the unelected Kommissars the people who have all the real power in the crumbling European autocracy, which for decades have made Europe more and more dependent on methane in Siberia, the price of which has increased in the last few weeks , 30 times the world price when the wind falls. Currently, the price of conventional methane in Europe is six times higher than in the US.

China has taken over most of the industries that the West has closed and emits more CO₂ per unit of production compared with businesses that the West has forced and unnecessary closures. Thus, the net effect of net zero policies is to increase global CO₂ output, at an enormous cost, both the senseless destruction of Western working-class jobs and the rapidly rising prices of fuel and electricity. Furthermore, now that a Communist has become president of Chile, the last important lithium fields not under Chinese control are likely to fall into Beijing’s hands, as are the fields of lithium in Africa, Tibet, Afghanistan, Greenland, Cornwall and nearly occupied. elsewhere did, so everyone who can afford to buy an electric car will soon pay more than they do now for the privilege.

All this economic wreckage arose from a fundamental flaw in physics first caused in 1984 by a left-hand agitator repeatedly captured at NASA, and continued to stretch at high altitudes. throughout the climate at Communist-dominated universities in the West. I gave an outline of the error last month, but there was a careless miscalculation in one of the tables, which I am correcting here.

A simple summary of the error, along with a note of its economic impact, will be found in American thinker blog for December 31, 2021.

By error, climatologists have wrongly assumed that every 1 K of direct warming by greenhouse gas enrichment of the atmosphere necessarily becomes about 4 K of final or equilibrium warming after accounting for feedback response. In reality, however, it is only one – and not a special possibility – of a range of possible outcomes.

For 1850, climatologists (e.g. Lacis et al. 2010, an influential paper that clearly showed the error) omitted the emission temperature in calculating the systematic gain, which they take as the ratio of the natural greenhouse gas 32.5 K to the direct 7.6 K. warming by all naturally occurring greenhouse gases up to 1850. Thus, 32.5 K/ 7.6 K gives a default system gain of 4.3 (given in Lacis it is ~4). Direct double 1.05 K-CO₂ warm to 4.3, one will get 4.5K eventually double-CO₂ warming, also known as the double-CO . balance₂ sensitivity (ECS).

The corrected system gain for 1850 is obtained by adding the emission temperature of 255.2 K to both the numerator and denominator: the system gain is therefore in fact (255.2 + 32,5 / (255.2 +7.6) or 1,095. That simple correction implies that the ECS on the basis of the feedback mode obtained in 1850 would be only 1.095 x 1.06 K, or about 1.2 K. ECS in Lacis et al. thus getting too large four times.

But what if today’s feedback mode isn’t what it was in 1850? Assume that the gain of the system today is only 1% larger than it was in 1850. In that case, using the erroneous method of climatology, the ECS would still be 4.5 K, as it was in 1850. But using the correction method would make us expect an ECS of 4 K, which is 250% larger than the 1.2 K obtained on a feedback-mode basis in 1850.

Precisely because a 1% increase in the system gain would increase the ECS by 250%, it is not possible to make an accurate prediction of global warming. Climatologists simply do not know the values ​​of the associated feedback intensities in the range of anything close to 1%. Hansen et al. (1984), the first culprit of climatological error, admits that they do not know the magnitude of the response within 100%, let alone 1%. IPCC (2013), in its fundamental temperature feedback table, implies a system gain from unity to infinity – one of the least constrained quantities in all of physics.

For this reason, all predictions of extinction, based on basic control theory errors by climatologists have led them to consider it almost certain that the large ECS, is completely meaningless. . They’re just conjecture stemming from that fundamental but fatal physics error.

The problem is not that the giant models on which climate panic are established do not directly implement the response formula. Once it is clearly understood that a single feedback response cannot be quantified by direct measurement, so the uncertainty in the magnitude of the response is very large, there is no prediction of global warming. based on the current assumption that the system gain is of the order of 4 can all be relied upon. For there is no good climate reason to assume that today’s feedback regime is any different than it was in 1850, especially because the climate system is essentially thermally stable.

Once climatological bias is understood, one can better appreciate the importance of the model’s Long Pause in global temperature, followed by sharp spikes due to the el Niño Southern Oscillation. nature. And one can better understand why not spending a single red cent trying to reduce global warming. To correct, eliminate the near certainty of large warming.

Even before climatological error correction, global warming reduction to zero in the West (even if we achieve it, which we won’t) would be only 1/13 K. , spending trillions to reduce what, adjusted for, will be only 1/40K of global warming in 2050 is simply not worth it. That’s a temperature drop too small to be measured with today’s temperature data sets. The calculation, using the key data step by step cannot be changed, as follows:

In Britain, ordinary people became more and more disgusted with all their politicians, of any party, because of their fear of the reputational damage that the Communist climate had done. for all of us who – for scientific and economic reasons – have rejected the Tang Party on global warming. The first political party found cojones to combat the meaningless roots and branches of global warming that will wipe out the board at the next elections.