‘No global warming for 17 years 3 months’ — A Monckton Analysis

By: - Climate DepotDecember 18, 2013 2:37 PM with 42 comments

Special to Climate Depot

No global warming for 17 years 3 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley 

The Long Pause just got three months longer – it’s now 17 years 3 months

The RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies for November 1996 to October 2013 had shown no global warming for exactly 204 months – the first dataset to show the full 17 years without warming specified by Ben Santer as showing the models got it wrong.

After the sharp global cooling in November, the RSS data for September 1996 to November 2013 show no global warming at all for 17 years 3 months, despite a continuing record rate of increase in CO2 concentration.


The models are badly underestimating the magnitude of natural influences on global temperature, not the least of which is the recent decline in solar activity. They are also badly overestimating the warming effect of CO2.

Since CO2 does cause some warming. it is more likely than not that global warming will return eventually. Not at anything like the predicted rate, but it will return.

It is prudent, then, to look not only at the now embarrassingly lengthening Long Pause, which a sufficiently energetic El Niño could bring to an end, but also at the now embarrassingly widening Gaping Gap between the +0.23 Celsius/decade the models predict for the first half of this century and the –0.02 Celsius/decade that is actually happening. The Gaping Gap is likely to remain, and to widen, even if global warming resumes.

How much warming does the IPCC predict?

Before we get to the Gaping Gap graph and the Global Warming Prediction Index that is calculated from it, we first establish exactly how much global warming the most recent IPCC Assessment Report predicts.

It is this prediction that will be benchmarked against measured real-world temperature change.


The diagram above is an adaptation of Figure 11.33ab of the IPCC’s 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, which backcasts to January 2005 the combined global-warming projections of up to 34 computer models under each of four radiative-forcing scenarios.

The diagram shows the models predict the world will warm till 2050 at a rate equivalent to 0.13-0.33 Cº/decade (central estimate 0.23 Cº/decade), or 1.33-3.33 Cº/century (central estimate 2.33 Cº/century).

The range of projected warming, 0.4-1.0 Cº over 30 years (again equivalent to 0.13-0.33 Cº/decade or 1.33-3.33 Cº/century), is also explicitly stated at paragraph of the Fifth Assessment Report.

So there is no doubt about how much warming the models relied upon by the IPCC are predicting. Till 2050, they are predicting warming equivalent to 2.33 Cº/century. This is below the 3.3 Cº/century they predict till 2100 because they imagine the rate of global warming will accelerate in the second half of the century.

The monthly Gaping Gap graph


The Gaping Gap graph displays the IPCC’s range of projections of global warming as an orange region, equivalent to the region bounded by the two dark red trend arrows in the IPCC’s diagram shown earlier.

The IPCC’s mid-range prediction, the thick red line, is that the world should have warmed by 0.21 Cº since January 2005, equivalent to 0.23 Cº/decade or 2.33 Cº/century.

The graph directly compares that official mid-range prediction with the bright-blue trend-line on the official temperature measurements, taken as the arithmetic mean of the global mean satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc., and the University of Alabama at Huntsville. The two datasets are downloaded in full every month so that the graph takes full account of any revisions that may have been made since the previous month.

The dark blue spline-curve shows the monthly data. The thick bright blue trend-line on the real-world data shows global cooling at 0.01 Cº since January 2005, equivalent to 0.17 Cº/century. Note how the bright red and bright blue trend-lines are diverging. With every month that passes, the IPCC’s predictions wander further and further from reality.

The lower bound of the orange region on the graph represents the 34 models’ low-end projection of future global warming: 0.4 Cº over 30 years, equivalent to 0.13 Cº/decade or 1.33 Cº/century. The thick, bright red line shows the IPCC’s central projection: 0.7 Cº global warming over 30 years, equivalent to 0.23 Cº/decade or 2.33 Cº/century. The high-end projection of 1.0 Cº global warming over 30 years, equivalent to 0.33 Cº/decade or 3.33 Cº/century, is too far above observation to be worth displaying at all.

The Global Warming Prediction Index

The Global Warming Prediction Index, calculated from the graph, reduces to a single number a direct comparison between the predicted rate of global warming since January 2005 with the measured warming rate. The monthly index number is simply the amount in Celsius degrees by which the IPCC’s most recent central projection of global warming has overshot or undershot the observed temperature trend since January 2005.

The models’ most recent predictions have overshot observed global warming by an impressive 0.22 Cº in less than nine years. That is equivalent to an overshoot of 0.25 Cº/decade or 2.5 Cº/century. The Global Warming Prediction Index is the large “0.22 Cº” in the box at top left on the graph.

The CO2 concentration record

For comparison, the CO2 concentration record, in gray, is from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The 18 ppmv (198 ppmv/century) rise in the trend on the gray dogtooth CO2 concentration curve, plus other greenhouse-gas increases, should have caused at least 0.1 Cº warming, with the remaining 0.1 Cº from previous CO2 increases, in contrast to the global cooling of 0.01 Cº that has actually been observed since January 2005.

Note that the CO2 trend-line and the observed-temperature trend-line are also diverging at the moment. Not exactly what the models had predicted. 

Look out for the Global Warming Prediction Index here every month

The Gaping Gap graph and the Global Warming Prediction Index will be here at Climate Depot at mid-month every month from now on, as soon as the satellite data for the previous month become available.

Here, for the first time, is the simplest, surest, most straightforward benchmark of the official global warming storyline. One glance tells you all you need to know.


  • bcpii .

    Is it possible that we are at the top of a plateau of solar cycles, and headed for global cooling?
    Bill Price USLandAlliance.US

    • carefix


      It is entirely possible and predictions of the current cooling period have been made by many scientists over the decades based on solar cycles. This field is still developing and is very interesting. There is a lack of full understanding of the mechanism by which global temperatures are affected but the correlations between solar/planetary cycles and global climate are very high. While in general we know that correlation does not prove cause the differences in the size of the effects is so immense that causality can reasonably be implied. By way of example, a heatwave in New Jersey is hardly likely to cause a quadrillion Watts solar flare but the reverse may well be possible.

      Currently there seems to be little doubt that the globe is heading into a major cooling period which will have major implications for agriculture in the Northern Hemisphere. There are two competing schools of thought, all supported by data. We are either heading into a Maunder type minimum of solar activity and deep cooling as was found in the depths of the little ice age OR we are heading into a prolonged, century long, Dalton type minimum producing the kind of weather that forced Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow in the Early C19th. Both possibilities are seriously bad news.

      The cooling is already underway and is due to accelerate from now on as solar activity, the PDO and AMO are all falling off at the same time. The cooling rate which is already severe across large swathes of Eurasia is about to steepen further. This has major implications for grain production in Canada and the US. This can partially be countered by planting winter wheat for example as the growing season shortens. Production in the far North is likely to cease and the corn belts migrate south accross the continental USA. Unfortunately farmers and growers will not be receiving the right advice from government which has bought into the AGW scam. This may very well result in catastrophic losses for the unprepared.

      • chuck_in_st_paul

        We are retiring to the Tropics. I will be so glad of the global cooling caused by the global warming because it’ll make it a tad more temperate there.

  • A real scientist

    Wow. This is the biggest example of junk science I’ve seen in awhile. From where do these numbers come? And why SPCIFICALLY Sept 1996 to Nov 2013? THis stinks of data cherry-picking. Let’s look at official records for 1996 – 2013: +0.48 degrees. How about if we use the last 20 years, 1993-1013? +0.70 degrees. 1982-2013? +0.66 degrees. 1972-2013? +0.68 degrees. Global warming is occurring – nobody with a brain doubts that, except those who who have a vested interest in fossil fuels. My question is: who funds this blog? Answer me that.

    • Paul Revered

      What you are an example of is an anon poster claiming to be a “real scientist”. You know those “official records” you tout, well the data gathered is a little suspect LOL Read More: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/10/15/noaa-closes-some-heat-biased-temperature-stations-0

      • marque2

        But it is from the Heartland Instutite. The once got a donation from big oil, and once got a donation from someone other than George Sorros. Bad, bad!

        • Paul Revered

          Hows that Global Warming treating you now????

    • Scott Scarborough

      How about 1998 to 2013 from your data set? About -0.08 degrees in 15 years. When you get such different rates depending on where you start and finish it just goes to show you… it’s all fly shit in pepper. The fact that you can pick a land surface temperature set that is so much higher than the satellite sets in this article disproves AGW much more assertively than anything that can be mustered in this article. That is because the satellite sets measure the mid-troposphere which by all climate theory should warm faster than the surface, not slower because of the Mid-tropospheric hot-spot predicted by the IPCC and which is non-existent.

    • Canuck

      You can call it cherry picking if you like but it’s been 17 years. It’s not warming. Nobody believes the AGW garbage any more.

      You rely on the same tired points… “Consensus”, the science is settled and anybody who disagrees is in the pay of Big Oil.


      • chuck_in_st_paul

        “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” – Michael Crichton
        “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” – Michael Crichton

        • Canuck

          He was right.

        • Earthling

          “Science and consensus are mutually exclusive because of the conflict of interest verified by the fact that consensus deals with the popularity of an idea, which has nothing to do with the truth of an idea. Therefore, the term, “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron because by combining mutually exclusive terms, it contradicts itself!” Timothy Casey

    • carefix

      Perhaps the biggest “cherry Pick” in AGW pseudo-science is using the ice core records rather than the atmospheric instrumental records for determining atmospheric CO2 levels. The warmist preferred measure – ice core data – does not work according to its inventor and developer whereas the direct atmospheric measurements do and have done with good accuracy (<+/- 10ppm) since at least 1850. Of course if the instrumental record were used then AGW does not exist. It only can exists as a hypothesis based on data known to be false and by ignoring data known to be accurate.

    • Dusan Ristic-Petrovic

      The most recent 17 year interval was chosen because it’s been suggested that it would take that long before a pause in warming might be considered significant. That comes from the ‘warmist’ camp. While this is a temperature plateau, it is significant for its divergence from the predicted monotonic warming. If the observations don’t fit the model, perhaps it’s the model that ‘stinks’.

    • Getreal

      My question is who funds you? Who funds Big Green and Big Carbon? Who provides all the grant money for your bogus studies and fallacious research? BTW you should change your title to “True Scientism” or “Advocacy Science”.

      • chuck_in_st_paul

        Saudi Arabia does

    • tdurden64111

      I am assuming that you, like myself, have a degree in science. Without sounding elitist, we cannot expect someone who has not studied science and physics as extensively to understand why global warming makes sense. What people sitting at home think about global warming does not change what is actually happening, unfortunately. Also unfortunate is that many people are too fixated on the “warming” part, when what is really happening is climate “change”.

      • Robert C Gladstone

        Well, as a “scientist”, I would expect you to be a little more detail oriented. Lord Monckton very clearly stated that warming was real, but that it was not nearly as alarming as alarmists state. There are climatologists and physicists who argue that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is minimal, regardless of your attempt to reclassify warming as change. At any rate, if you expect people to take you seriously, you should have read this article more closely or made your argument more carefully.


  • Andrew

    Question – what tea leaves are the US NCDC reading? The call it “hottest ever” but the RSS shows the anomaly plunging.

    • MichaelDSmith

      NCDC has left any pretense of science behind. Their adjustments now exceed anything remotely resembling “signal”. It’s full scale 1984 propaganda now.

    • Plant life loves CO2 and our oceans also absorb CO2.

  • carefix

    “Since CO2 does cause some warming”

    This is wrong. CO2 causes cooling by converting thermal energy in the atmosphere to radiation with a net upward flux.

    • tdurden64111

      *** I know it’s long, but please read my entire post *** CO2 that enters the atmosphere from the planet causes the atmosphere to thicken. This ends up warming the planet, and I will explain to you why. UV rays are at a higher wave length than Infrared (aka. heat). Higher wavelengths have an easier time penetrating substances than Infrared (look at a chart of the different wave lengths for an illustration). First, UV rays from the sun penetrate the earth’s atmosphere. They then hit the Earth’s surface and some are absorbed and converted into Infrared waves (heat). The Infrared then bounces back up to the atmosphere, but some of it bounces back down and is trapped because it cannot exit the atmosphere as easily as it did when it first entered as UV rays (light from the sun). This isn’t a matter of opinion, these are facts that are proven by physics and how particles interact with each other. The only thing that is a matter of opinion is whether not we, as humans, are accelerating significantly quicker than it would naturally occur.

      Summation – Of the 100% of UV rays that enter the earth’s atmosphere, less than 100% of that leaves as light. And what doesn’t leave as light was converted into Infrared waves (heat) and is trapped in our atmosphere (some of the Infrared also leaves the atmosphere). Adding more CO2 causes more of those UV waves to stay with us here on earth.

      • Doreen Gaydoon

        You missed the other important piece…. is the totality of CO2 change enough to effect any meaningful change? Answer is really no, and has been throughout history. CO2 has come after warming in every analysis. The longer the warming crowd fails to repent… to use their theological bent, the more likely their funding will be zero for the rest of their lives.

        • NiCuCo

          “CO2 has come after warming in every analysis.”

          In almost all cases, CO2 increases were a feedback , not a forcing. Mostly, the Milankovitch cycles have been the forcing. However, during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, a massive release of carbon, mostly as methane and carbon dioxide, caused a temperature increase of about 6 C.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            At the word causing, your argument fails. You need to look at other factors. Your perspective is not unlike the correlation between Nick Cage movies and pool drownings.

          • NiCuCo

            “Answer is really no, and has been throughout history. CO2 has come after warming in every analysis.”

            In the PETM, carbon increases, from outside the biosphere, came before temperature increases. In the much more common usual, related to the Milankovitch cycles, carbon came from the biosphere. Today the carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide and methane, is coming from outside the biosphere, from fossil fuels.

          • Doreen Gaydoon

            Now fully 100% of the IPCC models have crashed through their lower confidence bounds. CO2 is insignificant noise, nothing more. “Outside the biosphere” Yeah right. You should actually put a bag over your head to reduce your carbon footprint. At the very least it might make you smarter.

          • NiCuCo

            ‘”Outside the biosphere” Yeah right.”


          • Doreen Gaydoon

            good alloy by the way to turn what’s left of your brains into a pate.

          • NiCuCo

            “Now fully 100% of the IPCC models have crashed through their lower confidence bounds. ”

            Are you talking about Spencer’s baseline-shifting deception?


  • Earthling

    Climate catastrophists call this stuff “cherry picking.”

    • chuck_in_st_paul

      they also cherry pick, see Briffa et al and the three trees in Sibera that “prove” AGW

      • Al Gore bought a multi-million dollar home on Florida’s Atlantic coast. I guess Al isn’t worried about Florida flooding.

  • Anonymous

    It’s awful you’re saying global warming hasn’t been going on for 17 years “and 3 months”. Get to know your facts a little better. Though we have been doing very well since 2005, we’ve still had many bumps and bruises of this “non-existent” global warming you think there is. CO2 is there cause of global warming and it’s destroying our Earth to the point of no return. Though, with the year almost over, it is time to make our resolutions to be more kind to Mother Earth. Recycle, switch to fluorent lightbulbs, only run a dishwasher when it’s full, unplug electronics when you aren’t using them (curling irons, phone charges, ect.). Even lowering your thremostat by 2 degrees in the winter and raising it by 2 degrees in the summer can make a huge impact. Global warming is real and it will only get worse unless we, the people causing it, do something to change.

    • Getreal

      Spoken like a true devotee of the First Church of Climate Catastrophe. Spoken the with the true hysteria of a religious zealot seeking donations and adherents to the cause. Please inform yourself and stop listening to the false prophets like Al Gore.

      • It’s a liberal scam to create yet another tax. A carbon tax that will hurt our business and economy. Stupid liberals think Obama had such success with China which doesn’t have to do a darn thing for 16 years (2030) an by then China will tell us you go “F” off suckers. Even these nerds say if we stopped all pollution that things wouldn’t change much.

    • Paul Revered

      You are a moron, go stand outside right now on this extremely cold morning Jan 7th and cry about your Global Warming. The only thing that is real in regard to the GWIC aka the Global Warming Industrial Complex is their constant pitch that fighting it requires more taxes, fines and penalites meaning, they need to dream up a new financial bubble machine while rewarding themselves with more looted booty from the govt treasury via the taxpayer. I hope you freeze to death!

      • It never hit 90 degrees again in Buffalo, NY and it has never hit 100 degrees. Antarctic ice is up.

    • Those ,light bulbs and car batteries filled with poison can’t be good for the environment.

  • ‘The RSS data for September 1996 to November 2013 show no global warming at all for 17 years 3 months, despite a continuing record rate of increase in CO2 concentration.’

    No global warming for 17 years 8 months | Watts Up …


    Apr 05, 2014 · … it is significant if there is no warming at the 95% level for 15 years. We are past that on all global data … to ‘no global warming for 17 years …

    Climate Scientist: 73 UN Climate Models Wrong, No Global …


    … certainty” that human activity is causing global warming when it failed to predict thatglobal temperatures would … had 17 years of no global warming, …

    No significant warming for 17 years 4 months | Watts …


    Jun 13, 2013 · There has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for getting on … The fact that there has been no warming for 17 years is an …

    The New York Times’ Global Warming Hysteria Ignores 17 years on no signi

  • LittleMrJ

    A temporary cooling trend amidst a warming cycle is not uncommon. Volcanic activity is a primary cause, but the factors of how oceanic & land surface temperatures translate into the fluid dynamics of upper atmosphere temperatures are too numerous to easily understand. The most powerful supercomputers on Earth are those which are used to tackle weather cycles, & the variables are mind boggling. There are even studies on the amount of Sun radiation reflected back into space from thousands of daily passenger jet contrails. A decade of slight cooling isn’t definitive at all. CO2 levels are certainly rising from mankind’s industry, but only by hundredths of a percent over the past decades. It would take a thousand years at our current rate to return CO2 levels back to where they were during the Mesozoic Era, if it was even humanly possible to retrieve that much fossil fuel. After all, the CO2 we’re pumping into the atmosphere was in the air in the first place, before carbon based life trapped it underground. We’re not polluting the planet, we’re enriching it, we’re returning it to it’s natural state. Humans are the most resilient, resourceful, & adaptable creatures to have ever existed on Earth, we’re not killing ourselves with CO2 as much as we’re feeding the plants we like to eat. Fear mongering environmentalists are cowards afraid of change, even if it ultimately benefits the planet. Global climate change isn’t caused by us, we’re just helping it along.