Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months


By: - Climate DepotMay 4, 2014 7:11 AM with 51 comments

Special to Climate Depot 

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,

According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for April 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter, when an el Niño event is expected in the equatorial eastern Pacific, causing global temperature to rise quite sharply. The el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are visible in the graph. El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña.

The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015.

Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.

Key facts about global temperature: 

  • The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 213 months from August 1996 to April 2014. That is more than half the entire 423-month satellite record.
  • The fastest centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº per century – before the industrial revolution began. It cannot have been our fault.
  • The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
  • The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
  • Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend is equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.
  • The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
  • In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 3.5 Cº per century.
  • The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – two-fifths of what the IPCC had then predicted.
  • In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to 1.7 Cº per century – just half its 1990 prediction.
  • Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its centennial warming prediction of 3.7 Cº warming to 2100 on business as usual.
  • The IPCC’s prediction of 3.7 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
  • The IPCC’s 3.7 Cº-by-2100 prediction is more than three times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
  • Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the dataset of five major datasets is zero – 0.0 Cº per century. No warming for 13 years 3 months.
  • Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

Technical note: 

Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 212 months August 1996 to April 2014 – more than half the 423-months satellite record.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Interestingly, Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because the data are highly variable and the trend is flat.

Related Links: 

Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 8 months – No Warming Since August 1996

Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least nine  ten separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific Trade Winds 9)  ’Stadium Waves’ 10) ‘Coincidence’

Sea level rise slows while satellite temperature ‘pause’ dominates measurement record

Antarctic Sea Ice Expands To New Records – Approaching The Largest Anomaly Ever Recorded

‘The Himalayan glacier melt really was the least of the errors’ – UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol turns on UN: ‘The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and group think’ – ‘Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick’

Harvard Univ. Prof. On UN IPCC: ‘Serious ‘conflict of interest’ between scientists and governments’ – Top climate expert’s sensational claim of government meddling in crucial UN report – UN Lead Author Robert Stavins ‘was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials’

Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989!

 

The global warming movement continues to lose scientists, many formerly with the UN IPCC.

 

 

Another Dissenter: Geoscientst & former UN Consultant Dr. David Kear declares warming fears ‘based on unfounded unscientific beliefs’ – An ‘innocent gas, CO2, has been demonized and criminalized’

 

Another Prominent Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – ‘Global warming is nonsense’ Top Prof. Declares

 

Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess’ – Lovelock Reverses Himself on Global Warming

 

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

 

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’

 

‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Climate Scientist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’

 

German Meteorologist reverses belief in man-made global warming: Now calls idea that CO2 Can Regulate Climate ‘Sheer Absurdity’ — ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us’

 

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report - Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

 

‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’

 

Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’

Al Who? Gallup Poll: Americans concern about global warming falls to 1989 levels! — Climate ranks lowest among ENVIRONMENTAL Issues

Update: Excuse number 10 for the global warming ‘pause’ — ‘Coincidence!’, according to NASA scientists: ‘Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends’

Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate: Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears: ‘We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today’

 


  • http://www.durangobill.com/ Bill Butler

    It would be a real novelty if Global Warming Deniers would quote what the Remote Sensing Systems web site actually says instead of fabricating stories and pretending they are true.

    Here’s a quote from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) website:

    “•Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
    •Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
    •The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.”

    http://www.remss.com/research/climate

    • mike

      That must be the reason for the recent 17 year temperature standstill (or “global warming”, as you IPCC believers call it :P).

      /sarcasm off

      • Mark

        Don’t waste you time with these people Bill

        • Mike Blockhead

          You are right. He should probably support the IPCC scammers instead of getting the basics of climate science in his head. Please don’t get me wrong, but I am a student on university of atmospheric sciences and I literally know what I’m talking about. And I neither trust the IPCC nor most of the “sceptic” websites (even when many of them are quite convincing) because all I do is to get all the facts on my own. And I can only recommend everyone here doing the same instead of believing any “earth fever” or “ice age” conspiracy theories, no matter how convincing they are.

    • Guest

      Bill, you conveniently left this out information DIRECTLY after the bit you DID selectively use:

      ‘The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.’

      To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below. Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008. In each plot, the thick black line is the measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth’s Climate over the 20th Century. For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output. After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band. For the first two plots (Fig. 1 and Fig 2), showing global averages and tropical averages, this is not the case. Only for the far northern latitudes, as shown in Fig. 3, are the observations within the range of model predictions.

      http://www.remss.com/research/climate

      The ClimoChondriacs strike again.

    • Randall Semrau

      Bill, you conveniently left this out information DIRECTLY after the bit you DID selectively use:

      ‘The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.’

      To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below. Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008. In each plot, the thick black line is the measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth’s Climate over the 20th Century. For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output. After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band. For the first two plots (Fig. 1 and Fig 2), showing global averages and tropical averages, this is not the case. Only for the far northern latitudes, as shown in Fig. 3, are the observations within the range of model predictions.

      http://www.remss.com/research/climate

      The ClimoChondriacs strike again.

    • Charles Martel

      Temperature variation is caused by variations in solar output, ALWAYS has been. Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Period?, when most of the world was significantly warmer than it is today. Google it and learn something. Must have been all the fossil fuels they were burning back in the middle ages. Bill you are a clueless libtard.

    • Gary Iampaglia

      What would be a “Real Novelty” would be to get your head out of your A$$!!!

    • your_days_are_numbered

      the polar vortex is going to kill you : )

    • Squarzelfitz Yagoslavovich

      First of all, 17 years and 9 months is a different period of time than 35 years. Hmmm. Could it be possible to show a 35 year warming trend when no warming has taken place for 17 years nine months? How about this theory?
      It warmed for 17 years and three months and then flattened out for the next 17 years 9 months. It would be warmer today than 35 years ago and not warmer today than 17 years 9 months ago. BOTH could be true. Or is that too difficult to comprehend? Want me to make you a chart? You know, the graph thingy with an x axis and a y axis and a squiggly line.

      Secondly, “the climate models can’t explain the warming without including manmade co2?” Their inability to program climate models is proof? Are you seriously presenting a statement about climate models as evidence? In case you haven’t heard, climate models haven’t been able to explain or predict anything at all, with or without manmade co2! For anyone to call on the climate models to support AGW theory is beyond laughable. Fact: The climate models you present as evidence have a 100% failure rate. Read the facts in this congressional report.

      http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY18/20131211/101589/HHRG-113-SY18-Wstate-ChristyJ-20131211.pdf

      Thirdly, the warming that is claimed to be consistent with manmade causes is just as consistent with natural influences. Why was that little tidbit left out? Proof below.

      Your entire argument has been shredded.

      I’ll let Phil Jones, head of the CRU, star of the climategate scandal and beloved darling of the CAGW community, explain it to you.
      From BBC interview:
      When asked if the recent warming was unprecedented, Dr. Phil Jones replied,
      “So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”
      That’s a long winded way of saying “NO, it is not unprecedented.”

      Read it yourself. I assume the BBC is an acceptable source.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm?oo=102541

  • Cletus

    I wonder how a typo that glaring could get through (in the first sentence “17 years 9 years”) – in an article that is making the point that they have subjected the data to a higher level of scrutiny. Whatever happened to proofreading?

    • William P Barron

      Man, whatjcha talking about: 17 years and 9 months reads it to me.

      • doug

        I am convinced this “climate disruption” thing (this interval’s label for it) is just another attempt at wealth transfers. You’ve got Obama and his guys who see it as a way to further erode america’s power. And you have a scientific community with a stake in the funding. And of course all the dopes who have subscribe to the idea that if we enacted everything the “global disruption” industry wants, it would have more than a negligible impact absent similar changes from the Chinese and Indians who are Coal Plant double-downers. Even with the other main carbon polluters on board. who could be that certain of the outcome. Only a democrat is so arrogant that they think they can change the climate.

        But as any thinking person knows, this is just one part of the plan…

        Right now for health care I am paying 10K in annual premiums, with a $6350 pp deductible, max annual outlay of $12700. For this I am guaranteed 3 checkups for me, wife and daughter… and any other consequential health expenses are mine unless I hit these lofty $6-12K thresholds – in essence, potentially a $22,700 outlay annually before the first dollar of “insurance” kicks in. After all this disruption, It turns out perhaps 2M of those previously uninsured are now insured. And that is not a scam? They want to control people’s lives and they will lie, steal, cheat – whatever it takes.

        If there is a microscopic piece of political capital that can be preserved by lying or obfuscating – it’s a no brainer. The decision is reflexive. And not just lie – the political opponent is always demonized/blamed too.

        There are no principles.

        If you are a liberal democrat, you are one of three things – stupid, ignorant or deceitful.

        There is no logical basis for focusing on anything other than growing the economy, paying down the debt and restructuring all the other liabilities this country has. Instead, we get stuff that raises costs, stifles innovation, incentivizes sloth, fails to punish lack of accountability and generally breeds continuous uncertainty. We get wars on women, labels of denier, racist or homophobe. Claims that the argument is over, settled.

        If you hate the country, if you believe America is the source of everything bad in the world, if you believe all whites are racists, then the moves these liberal dems make is what you do. Serve Up Sh*t, promise it will be better “in the long run”, get a lot of really dumb hollywood types to make supportive media, buy a lot votes with offers of free this and free that. I suspect Liberal Dems have cobbled together potentially the dumbest constituent bloc in the history of humanity.

        People formerly wanted to come to the US, because if you are smart and work hard you have a better chance at a better life than anywhere on earth. It used to be a place where merit mattered.

        The very thing liberal democrats supposedly rail against – income inequality – gets worse with their policies. Clarity, Consistency, Certainty does more to level the playing field than any law or any transfer. Rich people thrive with the confusion – they can hire people to figure things out, make the best decisions.

        How do so many people miss what is so dam obvious.

  • paasingby

    “The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity”

    So no more salaaming the past temps down and the recent ones up by Hansen and Co over the last ten years or so.

  • Dorian

    I have said it before, and I will say it again…

    17 years and 9 months, what a surprise! And when this next month of non warming continues, it will be 17 years and 9 months plus 1 more month, resulting in 17 years and 10 months, I provide this FACT, for all those warmists whom all seem to be mathematically challenged.

    For the record, there would have to be one incredible spike of data in the next several months to counter weight the last 17 years and 9 months of data for there to be a mean temperature rise. Unless of course if there is a running average calculated in the months, which would seem absurd since it would not take in any seasonal variation. Thus even if there was a running average of say 5 years (I’d think 10 years would be make more sense – side note, I’d recommend using a prime number like 7 or better 13 years, for any natural or even unnatural (synthetic? hmm) aliasing process discovery mechanisms, reasons), it still would mean that we can very well ASSUME ( I say only assume, not state categorically like the idiotic warming crowd would), that no matter what the data comes in for the next few months, we are in line to hit 18 years of no global warming. Dare I say, 20 years, anyone? It is getting that close.

    And so, The Game of T̶h̶r̶o̶n̶e̶s̶ Science goes on. Hmm, that raises a thought, I wonder in the coming months/years if there is anything like a DaenerysTargaryen and her three dragons coming our way…. ah I can just imagine how the global warmists would latch on to such a notion and claim global warming as some kind of metaphor for Targaryen’s three dragons, or would it be better the other way around. In which ever way, it will be something stupid, as it always is.

    Yes it looks very much like 18 years without global warming… and not a dragon anywhere to be seen. An entire generation of children have and are going through school never to have experienced global warming, and yet, so many of them are brainwashed in believing in a world that is warming. I thought schools were to supposed to teach facts, but no, ideologies and brainwashing seem to be norm. And now these children are soon to enter the university environment, the problem with Science, seems to about go from exponential to hyperbolic.

    God help us all, when these students enter the work force, and demand funding and government support for even more outlandish ventures. Global warming is only the symptom, our real major problem is the hijacking of Science by the Exploiters. The Scientific Method has been replaced by The Exploitation Method. Schools no longer teach to learn and deal with facts, but how to exploit and twist facts….

    Science has gone to the dogs.

    Woe, woe is me.

    • AndyinHawick

      These surface temperature do not include the effect of melting ice in the Arctic. As ice melts, the temperature remains static but there is heat being absorbed. The effect, unfortunately is that this alters the albedo of the earth, making it darker and hence increasing the amount of solar energy that it absorbs (rather than reflecting).
      I note your prediction about this month’s temperature. It will be interesting to see how things pan out. (Having said this, the focus on the month and year scale is meaningless if one is looking for climate variations rather than weather patterns!)

      • Dorian

        I am sad to read such demagoguery.

        Of course, water (or should I say sea-water) has a specific heat capacity, both in ice and water. Sorry to inform, but this has been known for a few hundred years. But this heat capacity is not isolated, there are no borders to keep in the heat at the Arctic. This heat is not stored, because there is a surrounding ocean, and its associated current system, which act like heat sinks, as much as you would like to trumpet heat effects that you think build up in the Arctic through specific heat parameters, the law of Entropy is working, and that law takes heat and spreads it out everywhere. Keep to science AndyinHawick, you are cherry picking scientific laws that betray your ignorance and religious desires. Furthermore, the Antarctic is an order of magnitude more important that the Arctic and its freezing and getting bigger, furthermore, there is solid scientific evidence, to show that the Arctic has been ice free many times is the last 10,000 years, polar bears or not!

        Amazing this argument of hidden heat traps. What next, fire breathing dragons melting the Arctic?

        No matter what specific heat effects there are, there are NO black holes of heat, where heat can be hidden. Even a gravitational black hole has thermodynamic loses, as theorized, and it is not supposed to not let anything escape! The greatest driving force in Nature after the Sun, is Entropy. But the greatest question, and unknown, is self-organization which defies, it seems, entropy. And here is the true nefarious issue, real science flies in the face of religion, but with unexplainable concepts like self-organization the religious disciples of misanthropy use their neophytic fervour to lay havoc upon humanity all because of theomania.

        Stop looking for the boogeyman, hidden holes and traps, and mysterious processes, AndyinHawick. The facts are there, there is no global warming by the dreaded humans. There is no need to hate humanity, there is no need to punish Man with taxes, there is no need to send Man back to the Stone Age. There is much we do not yet understand, that is true, but ocean levels are not raising more faster, in fact they have diminished their rate of rise, the global temperature is anything but what it has already been before in the last thousand years, and in fact like it has been many times before in the last 500 million years. And since global weather is not something can be understand with data based upon for only 100 years of records, in fact, it may need 10,000 or 100,000 years of records before we get a clearer picture, I suggest Andy, go home, chill out dude, and have a little more faith in humanity and put your hatred where it really belongs, the scientists and politicians who are exploiting your taxes for personal gain.

        Chill out dude! The world is cool!

        • AndyinHawick

          Dorian

          Your assumptions are astounding. You have inferred so much about my beliefs from such a brief contribution! As well as the [specific] heat capacity of the [sea] water, I was pointing out the [specific] latent heat of fusion of the [lost] ice.

          I will not attempt to dismantle all of the erroneous assertions in your entry but it is worth noting that so-called self-organising systems do not defy the laws of thermodynamics; entropy still increases.

          I agree with you that there is no need to hate humanity. I have a high regard for humans and their unique place in the universe. I also have no desire to “send Man back to the Stone Age”, indeed I see the opportunity to break free from an addiction to fossil fuels that is not only extremely harmful but intrinsically limited (by the finite nature of the resource) and then progress to a better, cleaner, healthier future.

          Whether taxes are a ‘punishment’, I will leave for the politicians to debate.

          You certainly have very firm beliefs that you espouse. I am afraid that I could not hold such views with the tenacity that you demonstrate as I insist on good evidence before I commit to a position.

          Have fun!

          • Oil Can Harry

            “I insist on good evidence before I commit to a position.”

            Really?

          • Oil Can Harry

            “I insist on good evidence before I commit to a position.”

            Really?

      • planet8788

        Sea ice levels are near all-time highs… so no significant loss of albedo effect…

    • Squarzelfitz Yagoslavovich

      And the media supports them every step of the way.

  • William P Barron

    Tell Obama, Podesta and the EPA to “BACK OFF” their leftist crusade and make America truly “energy independent!”

  • rjb69

    What the heck is this crap? Seriously, someone makes a graph on their home computer and this becomes fact?

    If this is real, publish it. Have it peer-reviewed.

    Let me guess…they won’t do it. Gee, I wonder why.

    • tropical_resorts_in_the_arctic

      i’m drawing a AGW-is-bullshit graph on my bar napkin right now and i WILL have it peer-reviewed by everyone else in this damned bar as soon as i’m done, mister smart guy!

    • Oil Can Harry

      You can’t become a “peer reviewer” unless you’re part of the AGW club. See how that works?

    • Oil Can Harry

      You can’t become a “peer reviewer” unless you’re part of the AGW club. See how that works?

    • oldmainer

      Wonder no longer. It’s impossible to get it peer reviewed when the reviewers are determined to “hide the decline” in order to keep the grant money flowing.

  • Joshnya

    Why are all the so called energy saving products made in China? Oh, that’s right they do not have an EPA striking them down. So you buy a save the planet light bulb that was made in a country that builds a coal powered plant once a week and does not care about the planet. Some one is getting rich. Al Gore already made his millions with it. Next question. If Al Gore believe so much in global warming, you would think he would have IPhones made in America not polluting China. I mean after all he sits as a board of directors for the company. It’s say one thing and then make your millions with cheap labor in free from EPA Obama regulation China.

  • Media Mentions

    At this point, I’m trying to understand how the average layperson is supposed to have an objective perspective on global warming if even the scientific community is so divided. Honestly, the best solution I have found so far is to just follow multifaceted debates like the one on PressReader http://www.pressreader.com/profile/Spotlight/bookmarks/global_warming. If anyone has better ideas, I’m all ears. Also, yours seems to have been one of the few articulate points of view I’ve had the pleasure of reading lately. So you know, props and all.

  • Mike Benton

    So now what will the liberals say? Global stagnation?

    • coconut_palms_in_the_acrtic

      they’ll say the no-warming-in-18-years is simply further, settled-science evidence of how the horrible and disasterous the AGW magnitude will be since we’ve been foolish enough to idly sit by when this thing takes off… any. day. now.

    • Squarzelfitz Yagoslavovich

      The Earth is obviously a Republican. It’s stubborn and refuses to behave the way our infallible models tell it to. It’s most likely hiding the heat in an effort to discredit the president and the CAGW community.

      My favorite quote from a recent post on another blog, “I’m an expert on climate change so listen up, just because the earth hasn’t warmed for almost 20 years doesn’t mean it isn’t getting warmer. And anyone who thinks the sun has anything to do with warming the earth is a complete moron.”

      I declined to ask how something that isn’t getting warmer can be getting warmer or what he/she/it thought was the primary heat source for our planet lest I be called a moron by a renowned expert with such a staggering intellect. It was a humbling experience

  • spawn44

    This is temperature data that wasn’t manipulated by the leftist democratic communists for political purposes. By the way, Tom Brokow scolding Rubio for not believing in the AGW democratic scam is funny. Brokow should retire, his trying to impersonate a leftist version of Paul Harvey is pathetic.

    • HonestConservative

      Monckton doesn’t dispute the data but he only uses half of it. He only graphed 212 months of the total of 424 months. Look at the total 424 months and you will see a totally different picture to the one Monckton tries to paint. Click on this link to see a graph of all of the data. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014.3/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014.3/trend

      This data is only a small portion of what has been gathered by many different means since the late 1800s. The data Monckton uses supports the longer term data. We have to be our own scientists and look at the data. Don’t get fooled by people like Monckton. We are determining the future of our children and their children. We need to be smart and not simply listen to the pundits.

      • spawn44

        The left trying to blame man as the culprit for every NATURALLY OCCURRING WEATHER EVENT for the last 40 years has fallen flat on it’s face. They have based their false claims on POLITICAL SCIENCE which has been MANIPULATED, CHERRY PICKED, and PROPAGANDIZED to meet their agenda. There’s not one assertion of theirs that has been scrutinized by real scientists that has no collapsed faster than Al Gore can swim after a drowning polar bear when the cameras are on. It’s not about the Children it’s about GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND GROWTH THROUGH REGULATIONS.

  • Sam Huston

    The terms Global Warming and Climate Change has been discarded by the alarmists because the weather wasn’t following the rigged models.

    That’s why Obama recently coined the term “Climate Disruption”. If the weather pattern changes from cold to hot, wet to dry, calm to inclement, the alarmists can rightly claim that the pattern was disrupted.

    “He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals

    • HonestConservative

      If you want the truth. Click on this link to see the Monckton graph. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.55/to:2014.3/plot/rss/from:1996.55/to:2014.3/trend

      Then click on this link to see all of the data from 1979, not Monckton’s convenient selection.
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014.3/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014.3/trend

      • Squarzelfitz Yagoslavovich

        Let me explain how Monckton determined the length of the trend. He did not try dozens of specific time frames and choose the one that showed what he wanted, You take the latest available data, you don’t get to choose the one that works best, and work backwards until the trend ends. No one picks the starting date or the ending date. It is not convenient picking or cherry picking, it’s following the data. The data determines the start and end dates. Which are currently August 1996-April 2014.
        Why do you choose the date 1979? Monckton could have chosen the starting point at the peak of the El Nino in 1998, which would show a 15 year cooling trend. Or gone back to the Medieval Warm Period to show a 1,000 year temperature decline. He didn’t. He followed the data, which is what scientists are supposed to do.

        • HonestConservative

          I chose 1979 because Monkton chose the RSS MSU data and the data started in 1979 when the satellites were launched. He is cherry picking.

        • http://www.roughscience.com.au Sean M Elliott

          Correct. Though his start point is pretty generic and works well for his argument. The usual span used by meteorologists is 30 years.

      • David Caywood

        So how has the temperature changed from 1996.55 to 2014.3??! We’re not allowed to talk about temperature changes from from 1996.55 to 2014.3 just temperature changes from 1979 to 2014 right? There is nothing sacred about 1979, every trend over a sufficiently large interval is worth examining.

        • http://www.roughscience.com.au Sean M Elliott

          What’s your definition of a “sufficiently large interval”? (30 years is what meteologists use to define a region’s climate.)

  • frodo

    17 years of beating a dead horse with no end in sight?

    GET A LIFE PEOPLE!

  • frodo

    17 years of beating a dead horse with no end in sight?

    GET A LIFE PEOPLE!

  • Dude

    All the global warming models and predictions were WRONG. So the theory is BS, and yet they still try to push it on us.

    If I refuse to say that black is white, what exactly am I “denying”? I guess I’m denying their lies?

  • TalkinHorse

    The fundamental concern about the ultimate effect of artificially raising the level of atmospheric CO2 is reasonable. Common sense would lead one to consider global warming as a realistic possible scenario, as the planet retains slightly more heat. However, the ecosphere is complex beyond modeling, so there’s much uncertainty. The alarmist projections of the recent era have turned out to be incorrect. Personally, I’m worried about how human tampering will play out; we can’t reasonably expect our work to have no effect. But what, as a practical matter, are we to do? Even as we shut down our own industries, other countries roar to life. China now emits more CO2 than America, so we import from them, and we haven’t saved the world but we’ve managed to go broke and our people can’t get jobs. And most of the political “green” is wasteful boondoggles and payoffs to political cronies — which means these government-sponsored projects end up spoiling resources, which is the opposite of true green.

  • JP

    How many arbitrary straight lines, each one sitting higher on the graph than the previous, are we up to now?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    • Squarzelfitz Yagoslavovich

      I’ll ask again. Where is your empirical evidence linking co2 and climate? Why did Skeptical science have a blog that denied the pause and another blog that tried to explain the pause? If the pause doesn’t exist there’s no need to explain it. Why did these very same questions disappear almost immediately from the skeptical science website while comments with nasty attacks aimed at skeptics remained? Why did one of the blogs suddenly disappear when several people asked why contradictory blogs were posted?
      Why does any logical, well thought out posting questioning skeptical science disappear without a trace? Why do skeptics who post respectfully get barred while vicious attacks are permitted by those who agree? Do the matg

  • Rabbits

    The blue line on this chart is drawn through the +0.23 degrees line. So that would mean this chart shows yearly WARMING, on average, no?

  • The Bad Reverend

    This is on one data-set only. A data set (RSS) which has little coverage of the Arctic region and virtually no Antarctic coverage. Every single one of all the other temperature data sets, which have more complete global coverage, show warming during this period. This is despite the Super El Nino in 1997/98. If there is another, even a weak, El Nino event this year (as many forecast there to be) then the “no warming since 1996″ mantra will be obsolete. This is what happened after the warmest year on record, 2010, when suddenly the science deniers stopped saying “no warming since 1995″. Never mind, I’m sure they will find another start date to cherry-pick. Why do they have to keep changing the goal posts? Continued global warming.