No global warming for 17 years, 6 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months. Miss Brevis, send a postcard to Mr Gore:


Why did none of the vaunted models predict this long hiatus, stasis, pause, halt, rest, interval, intermission, break, time out, vacation, furlough, gap, plateau, or flat spot?



newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Baa Humbug

“Halt”. Describing it any [other] way is wrong


Thats a bit od a cherry pick. If you look at the RSS data like this: ist more like warming up till 12 years ago when it started cooling.

David Smith

When I’ve asked pupils at the secondary school (that’s limey speak for “High School”) that I’ve taught at how much the earth’s average temperature has risen in their lifetimes I get all sorts of wacky answers. Whatever they say, the rise is always positive.
When I then tell them it hasn’t risen throughout their whole lifetimes they are gob-smacked. Some have even looked rather annoyed about how they have been fed a lie by other teachers in the school that, “the globe has got a fever!”

If you huff and puff you get warmer but the climate not so much.

In Sydney recently, in response to a question, the warmies admitted that there has been no warming for 17 years and they acknowledged that the models are increasingly diverging. The question pointed out the increased certainty that man-made CO2 causes global warming. The excuse as to the discrepancy was the ASSERTION that the heat has gone to the deep oceans-nearly impossible to prove or disprove. Now we hear IPCC chief Christiana Fugueres declaring that Democracy is not well suited to dealing with global warming. Chinese Communism is the best model. All this hinging on the ASSERTION of where the inconvenient heat has gone.By not criticizing her for this outrageous comment, the UN is revealing their true motivations.All so revealing-the UN condones the iron fist of totalitarianism justified on an unprovable assertion..
It appears we are seeing the affects of the solar minimum now.
Fewer hurricanes and now, glacier growth.

Remember Lord Monckton its a cherry pick unless it supports the idea that the Earth is on fire and it is all our fault :-). If you measure hot days in the vicinity of Timbuktu between January the 26th and January the 30th between 1980 and 1998, you will see that the world is overheating at a dangerous rate, and it is all our fault!


If you were to use a continuous function rather than a straight line
you could observe that RSS is now on a downward trend rather than just ‘flat lining’.

Gordon Cheyne

“Miss Brevis, send a postcard to Mr Gore”
I worked some years ago with a nurse called Vita, who (of course) I jokingly called “Vita Brevis”.
Before long, I heard the surgeons calling her “Nurse Brevis”
When I explained that I only called her that because her ars was longa, all I got was a blank look . . . . .


This is sure to upset Walter K.

stan stendera

Milord Monckton. Thank you. How stupid are the global warmists??

Mike McMillan

Climate Change Climate Same.

For Sydney readers, the next warmie-fest is at Sydney University on April 1(how appropriate) on AR5. Hopefully we can get an evil question in again and turn their warmie-fest into a squirmy-fest.It will be on APAC channel(foxtel) a couple of days after the event.


Global means global. RSS and UAH provide that.
Flat out. The Models are “severely” in error. No global warming
for 18- years cannot(under any prevailing circumstance),
physically explain such a lack of warming. The data speak
for themselves.

School children don’t know what global warming feels like… 🙂


“Why did none of the vaunted models predict this”
Because climate “science” = pseudo-science and the models are crap!

Green Sand

“A perfect lull then”
H/T – Alan Reed @ BH


matfromdevon says:
March 4, 2014 at 3:13 am
Thats a bit od a cherry pick. If you look at the RSS data like this: ist more like warming up till 12 years ago when it started cooling.
Your chosen starting point could also be described as ‘ a bit odd cherry pick’ as well, as can the 1979 starting point chosen by IPCC and others.


Have the other 4 global temperature datasets yet to report also shown the same sort of thing? Also their names and where to find their data would be nice


And atmospheric CO2 is still increasing. What great confirmation of a theory. A theory that never stood up to the laws of physics.

John Thompson

Greenhouse radiative forcing conjectures would require a sensitivity for water vapour (WV) that is at least 10 degrees per 1% increase in WV.
There is absolutely no evidence that WV does in fact warm by anywhere near this amount. In fact it cools. If it did warm by 10 degrees per 1%, then a desert with 1% WV would be 30 degrees colder than a rain forest with 4% WV above it.
That indicates the phenomenal extent to which the greenhouse garbage is incorrect.

george e. smith

“””””…..matfromdevon says:
March 4, 2014 at 3:13 am
Thats a bit od a cherry pick. If you look at the RSS data like this: ……”””””
Well the only problem with your cherry pick matfromdevon, is that it includes data from years before 1997, when anomalies were lower.
You clearly have just arrived at the game, and looked at the score, and you want to include the scores from earlier games.
The rules for Lord Monckton’s “RSS Game” are even simpler than the axioms of Projective Geometry.
Rule #1…Obtain the MOST RECENT RSS anomaly data.
Rule #2…Determine the EARLIEST PREVIOUS MONTH for which a conventional statistical trend analysis yields precisely ZERO TREND of course with the properly calculated uncertainty.
Rule #3…Subtract that earliest date from the most recent date, to obtain the total months of zero trend.
QED Fine.
That is the RSS Game; it’s not rocket science. You are in violation of rule #2. You are Red carded.
Christopher has not monkeyed with the rules, since he invented the game. So why introduce all this legally irrelevant pseudo evidence.
If you believe Christopher has watered the pitch, then show us your proof, that he has.
You are of course free to invent your own game, and see if it is more popular than Lord Monckton’s RSS Game. Good luck on that

Kurt in Switzerland
Here’s an exercise in extrapolation (which any schoolchild can perform) of the long-term temperature profile, just in case someone accuses you of cherry-picking again. The above graph was made using the HadCRUT4 dataset, as presented by the MetOffice (part of the Royal Society National Academy of Sciences joint report).
Let’s assume “Business as Usual” means a continuation of the long-term (60-y avg.) profile. Now print out a copy of this graph and extend the x-axis to what would correspond to the year 2100. Then take a straightedge and extend the 60-y avg. profile to the right. You’ll probably find yourself somewhere near the interface between the light blue and green-shaded portions of the image, which would correspond to approx. 1.5ºC above the 1970 level (assuming current long-term trends continue). Yet the RS/NAS report would have us believe that the temperature will rise to 3.7ºC (+/-1.1ºC) “in addition to that which has already occurred” under a business-as-usual scenario.
See Figure B5 (last page).
Now try to imagine a curve which would bring the 60-y avg. temperature up 3.5ºC between now and 2100 (which would correspond to the top of the orange-shaded portion). That would require a radical increase in pitch – an increase by a factor of four between now and then – something which would appear highly unlikely to happen, given the well-acknowledged pause for a decade and a half and the fact that CO2 IR absorption capacity is logarithmic in nature.
Equally silly is the premise that “aggressive emissions reductions” would result in a flat temperature profile between 2050-2100. This is pure conjecture, and has no place in science.
Kurt in Switzerland

Village Idiot

Of course the RSS data set (known by Sir Chris as the “Received Data Set”) is looking by all accounts as a bit of an outlier when compared to other global temperature estimates.
This can easily be seen, for example, when comparing the temp trend around the years 2002-2006 for all 5 data sets. The simple running 37 month average highlights this nicely – only RSS showing a downward trend.
Ought he RSS crew to look again at their data processing and adjustments to see where the problem lies?

Dodgy Geezer

@Gordon Cheyne says:
I worked some years ago with a nurse called Vita, who (of course) I jokingly called “Vita Brevis”.
Before long, I heard the surgeons calling her “Nurse Brevis”
When I explained that I only called her that because her ars was longa, all I got was a blank look .

This is a succinct illustration of the lowering of educational standards. In my day everyone in the medical profession would have had a smattering of Latin at least, and usually Greek…

One bad year and they will have to explain why their models did not predict 20 years of global cooling, unless it is kept out of the newspapers in which case they will not have to explain anything.

Peter OBrien

Simplistically, the theory of CAGW (which, by the way, is the term that sceptics should always employ rather than playing into the hands of the warmists by talking about ‘climate change’) says that it is not just the warming effect of CO2 that is a problem but, more so, the amplification due to increased water vapour. But that amplification should be apparent whatever the cause of warming, whether CO2 or natural. Whenever sceptics point out the pause since 1998, the warmists counter that 1998 was a particularly strong El Nino year and that, because it is a natural forcing, it’s ‘cherrypicking’ to use that as a start point. But why didn’t the amplification kick in then?


I’d love to see that graph overlaid with all of the Wayne’s World post-hockery(hockey) ‘corrections’
AkA All models are wrong and here’s why ours were spot on after all!


Last time, even with periodically up-adjusted official global average temperature, the 1998 equivalent peak that occurred before in 1945 required a whopping 35 years to regain such lofty heights so that may mean a lack of further warming until 1998 + 35 = 2033, seen clearly here:


Eric Worrall says:
March 4, 2014 at 3:42 am
“School children don’t know what global warming feels like… :-)”
Ha! Nice one Eric.
There must be a nice little presentation in that for the worlds school children, and their teachers, too.


HighTreason said on March 4th, 3:36am
“Now we hear IPCC chief Christiana Fugueres declaring that Democracy is not well suited to dealing with global warming. Chinese Communism is the best model.”
Up here in Canada, we have a fiberal politician by the name of Justin Trudeau. He’s got really nice hair and girls swoon when he smiles. He’s also leading in most polls. He was recently asked in a fluff interview, what country other than Canada he admires, and why. His response was;
“There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green, we need to start, you know, investing in solar.”
Do these people meet at Starbucks every night? Why do they all seem to read from the same script all the time?


AGW alarmism continues despite this lack of warming, and –

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” Obama told the Chronicle . “Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

Bruce Cobb

Mother Nature – the biggest climate d*nier on the planet. The True Believers must be thinking of ways of sanctionionig her even now.

The thing that can go unnoticed is the fact that we’re really dealing in tenths of degrees. Also, what’s the point of all this if you don’t even know what a normal temperature “should” be?

son of mulder

Be very afraid of melting permafrost because of climate change could release “new viral threats”.
“Since the 1970s, the permafrost has retreated and reduced in thickness, and climate change projections suggest it will decrease further.”
It doesn’t say “thankfully for 17 years and 6 months there has been no warming”.


luysii March 4, 2014 at 3:54 am

Have the other 4 global temperature datasets yet to report also shown the same sort of thing? Also their names and where to find their data would be nice

Go to this site
….and from the drop down list called ‘Data Source’ select your own dataset.
RSS and UAH are satellite measurements, HADCRUT3, HADCRUT4 and GISS are land based.

Richard Barraclough

george e. smith says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:01 am
Well done. You have clearly explained the rules of the “RSS trend game”!
Since the zero-slope clearly only goes back as far as 1996, I thought I would look at the slope for some longer periods.
Last 20 years (from Feb 1994) 0.030 deg C/ decade
Last 30 years (from Feb 1984) 0.146 deg C / decade
Maximum trend (from Dec 1983) 0.148 deg C / decade
Whole data set (from Jan 1979) 0.125 deg C / decade
Although these longer trends are positive, none of them could really be described as particularly significant for the well-being of life on earth, and is more of a statistical exercise. During the last 12 months, the longer period trends have inched downwards with changes in the 3rd decimal place. For example, in July 2013, the trend for the whole data set was 0.129 deg C / decade. You can also question the validity of applying a linear fit to a dataset which is not behaving in a linear way, even though the maths is straightforward.
Congratulations to the administrators of this RSS data set for releasing the previous month’s figures so promptly. The others all keep us waiting for a couple of weeks at least.

Box of Rocks

Kurt in Switzerland says:
March 4, 2014 at 4:11 am
Are you sure you are using a valid data set to begin with?
Remember the 1930’s were warmer than today.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

Do you think we should henceforth refer to warmists as ‘Flat Deniers’, or should we just go with ‘Climate Nazis’?
REPLY: I think we should take the high road, and not label them with either. While I disagree with Dr. Spencer’s use of ‘Climate Nazis’, I defend his right to say it. – Anthony

the machines are giving false readings…..the heat is in the oceans……never mind the facts green is ‘the right thing to do’…if we wait long enough it will go back to warming….
can i have my tax money back? Oh now i know why the co2ers wanted immunity from prosecution
the trouble is in the future it will discredit any science in the eyes of the public who will think its ‘just another global warmers’ scam?

Peter Miller

I hear the alarmists are about to start sacrificing virgins in an attempt to trigger a big El Niño, so they can ‘prove’ global warming is happening and that the ‘pause’ is now definitely over.
Apparently, Mann, Trenberth and Hansen have consulted some specially designed computer models, which show this will work.

Leo G

Hockey’s playing hooky!


Record snowfall in Scotland may allow skiing into summer,
Earlier in the week Iain Sykes, the founder of Nevis Range Ski Resort claimed that the resort had more snow than ever in the history of skiing there.
A HIGHLAND snowports resort which enjoyed its busiest day in a decade this week has unveiled plans to “ski into summer” if conditions allow.
eeek the start of a mini ice age.


A glacier was still in place in Scotland within the past 400 years,

Kurt in Switzerland

Box of Rocks –
I’m using THEIR dataset and THEIR long-term trend analysis! Even so, the long-term trend is NOT threatening. It is FAR from their loud prognoses. Yet they keep saying the earth’s atmosphere will warm by 4ºC between now and 2100 (with a straight face, hoping nobody will challenge this “expert view”).
This is just silly. As is the bit about mitigation with restrictive CO2 emissions policies.
Kurt in Switzerland

No matter what the cherry pick, the question of how long a pause has to happen before it invalidates the models remains and those who are advocating the man-made catastrophic warming theory seem remarkably averse to answering it. It’s a very simple question that establishes that what they are doing is falsifiable and therefore science. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Mattfromdevon is correct. Does a 12 year pause invalidate the models? NOAA says no but they’re an outlier because they give a number, which I recall being 16 years. Then again, in 2008 when they gave that number, they said that they considered the question because of the decade long pause at that point.
The vast consensus of the CAGW scientific elite regarding these questions is shut up. They do not give a number. There is no consensus for measuring out how long a flat trend would take to invalidate their models, nor is it easy to find out how great a divergence between model and measurement would do the trick. This puts them into the category of the placebo effect and shamanism for as long as they refuse to answer such questions. Assertions are not science if they are not falsifiable.
Once the falsifiability standards are established, it’s mostly a waiting game to see if they’re ever breached. When they are, that particular model is falsified, just like any other scientific prediction.

Excellent article Christopher! When will people finally get the message that mankind is not destroying the world!
Slightly off-thread on the BBC radio news this morning there was an item about a 30,000 year old virus that had been discovered in the permafrost that had been brought back to life and had infected amoebae, (it was harmless to humans)! They then went on to tell us that due to climate change, as more permafrost melts we might start seeing smallpox viruses and other nasties coming out of hibernation to infect us. So now they have found another reason to stop something which is not happening in the first place and scare the cr@p out of the amoebae!

Steve Hill (from the welfare state of KY)

Obama says so, he is never wrong…..PS send more welfare to Ky. 25% of population on it.


How far back can you go before you get statistically significant warming? 17 years and 6 months is nice, but I would suggest you could at least go back to the Roman warm period. “No warming for at least 2000 years!” would be quite the slogan…


The funny part on it is that in these 17 years, despite wasting unbelievable amounts of money on renewables, CO2 concentrations not just didn’t stop growing, they accelerated. Regardless what temperatures are doing, somebody should finally notice that what we are doing about it is wrong and completely futile.