No global warming for 17 years 8 months

RSS considers the cause of a Pause now half the satellite record long

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Times are not easy for true-believers just now. The RSS satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly for March, just in, shows no global warming at all for 17 years 8 months. This remarkable 212-month period, enduring from August 1996 to March 2014, represents half of the entire 423-month satellite record since it began in January 1979.


Figure 1. The remarkable 212-month absence of global warming, notwithstanding a record rate of increase in CO2 concentration. The Pause – the least-squares trend on the data for the past 17 years 8 months – now extends to just over half the entire 423-month Remote Sensing Systems satellite record since January 1979.

Yet we should not crow. A strongish el Niño – we are rather overdue for one – may well shorten the Pause quite a bit, but probably only until the subsequent la Niña a year or two later, whereupon the Pause may resume and perhaps continue embarrassingly to lengthen for a decade and more. Or so my model tells me, and that means it must be right. Right?

To appreciate the sheer magnitude of the credibility problem the modelers and their host of fawning apologists now face, we can look at the crisis faced by the paid propaganda merchants at “Skeptical” “Science”. They are proud of their tacky little alarmo-ticker, which – so they assert – demonstrates how many “Hiroshima bombs” of global-warming energy have been trapped in the atmosphere since – for some reason – 1998.

The labeling of that useless widget with the word “Hiroshima” is a downright offensive and insulting exploitation of the death and acute suffering of hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-combatant citizens of Japan in one of the most disgraceful atrocities in the dismal history of warfare.

It is all of a piece with the characterization of scientific skeptics as “climate deniers”, a hate-speech term that maliciously invites comparison with the most disgraceful atrocity in the history of warfare – the slaughter of almost six million innocent, non-combatant citizens of Europe by Hitler’s goons.

For this reason, let us talk no more of “Hiroshima bombs”. Let as talk, as followers of the scientific method should, of the radiant energy theoretically retained in the atmosphere by the influence of Man on the climate – and not just since 1998 but since the Pause began in August 1996.

CO2 concentration in 1996 was about 363 ppmv. Now it is more like 398. We may assume either that temperature feedbacks are net-zero or that, over so short a timescale as 17 years 7 months, they will not have had much opportunity to operate.

In that event, using the IPCC’s method, the additional radiant energy retained in the atmosphere thanks to CO2 is 5.35 times the logarithm of the proportionate CO2 concentration change in Watts per square meter, divided by the fraction of total anthropogenic forcing represented by CO2, which the IPCC reckons at 70%. That gives 0.704 Watts per square meter.

All of this is mainstream IPCC climatology. No ifs or buts. That, at minimum, is the quantum of anthropogenic radiative forcing that should have warmed the system since September 1996 – if the IPCC were right. According to NASA the volumetric mean radius of the Earth is 6371 km. Surface area, then, is around 510 Tm^2. So the additional energy flux in the Earth-atmosphere system since the Pause began is close to 360 TW. That’s a lotta Watts.

In a zero-feedback regime the instantaneous and equilibrium warmings are equal. By the IPCC’s own method, then, the central estimate of the global warming that should have occurred since September 1996 is 0.313 x 0.704. That works out at 0.22 Cº. But the observed, real-world outturn is 0.00 Cº. So, where on Earth did all those terawatts go? RSS have been working on that. This is what they report [with comments from me in square brackets]:

“Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. [Three cheers: they’re doing some good, old-fashioned science, checking the models’ output rather than just believing it].

“Our results can be summarized as follows:

“Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 Kelvin (0.23 Fº) per decade. [Actually, make that closer to 0.12 K/decade: the Pause is long enough to slow the rate a little more].

“Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation. [But the warming is well within natural variability, so the inability of models to “explain” the warming without Man merely shows how bad they are at representing natural influences].

“The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al., 2008-12, for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data. [Note the use of one of the usual suspects’ favorite weasel-phrases, “consistent with”: the spatial pattern of warming is also “consistent with” natural variability, and an honest scientist would have said so].

“But the troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict. [Their emphasis. Hurrah! Some intellectual honesty about the Pause at last].

“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 CMIP5 [Climate Model Inter-comparison Project, version 5] model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth’s climate over the 20th century.

“The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.

“For the 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. 2 and Fig 3), showing global averages and tropical averages, this is not the case. Only for the far northern latitudes, as shown in Fig. 4, are the observations within the range of model predictions.


“Figure 2. Global (80S-80N) mean TLT [tropical lower-troposphere] anomaly as a function of time. After 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming. [Honesty again].


“Figure 3. Tropical (30S-30N) mean TLT anomaly as a function of time. Again, after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming. [Yet more honesty].


“Figure 4. Northern Polar (55N-80N) mean TLT anomaly as a function of time. For this latitude band, the observations remain within the model envelope. [But latterly on the low side].

“The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. Possible reasons include increased oceanic circulation leading to increased subduction of heat into the ocean, higher than normal levels of stratospheric aerosols due to volcanoes during the past decade, incorrect ozone levels used as input to the models, lower than expected solar output during the last few years, or poorly modeled cloud feedback effects. It is possible (or even likely) that a combination of these candidate causes is responsible.”

Just a little honesty there, too. Just one off-the-cuff suggestion (volcanoes, which have not been particularly active globally in the past decade), but no fewer than three possible modeling errors are suggested.

At last, at long last, the Pause is having its effect. The modelers, and those – such as the IPCC – who have until recently placed a naïve and complete faith in them to which no mathematician would have subscribed for an instant unless he had been very well paid to do so, are beginning, just beginning, to wake up and smell the coffee. Will somebody tell the politicians before they squander any more of your money and mine?


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kevin Lohse

Someone doesn’t like Lord Monckton Ah, Bless.

Lance Wallace

“Surface area, then, is around 510 Tm”
Typo for m^2?

Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton. I await UAH to make sure.
The global temperature standstill goes on, and on.

Jim Cripwell

Your lordship writes “Will somebody tell the politicians before they squander any more of your money and mine?”
Just over a month ago, I, once again, contacted my MP, David McGuinty, this time by written letter. He has very kindly forwarded my letter to our Minister of the Environment, and requested a response. That was on March 12th 2014. The protocol is that the Minister must send a reply, though I do not know what sort of time frame is involved. Should I expect a reply in 2, 3, 6 or even 12 months? I don’t know. I hope to find out in the near future.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

I’m English, not American, but war is war. It matters not one jot whether the people of Hiroshima were combatants or not, it was a means to an end. Hindsight is a wonderous thing, and makes people who might otherwise appear intelligent, say something stupid. But try to think back to THAT time. The Japanese would have fought on for years, for every yard of land, such was their stupendous belief in their little world. Those two bombs cost many Japanese lives, but saved countless American ones. Given ALL that we know, and given the time and opportunity again, it was STILL the right thing to do, and (on a different continent) Bomber Harris was still correct in every thing he did – including Dresden. Mr Monckton, you may consider retraction of a particular piece of your writing.

Larry Hamlin

The UN IPCC AR5 WGII final climate report has been released. This UN WGII report attempts to evaluate various global risks associated with future climate change. The evaluation process utilized in the WGII report relies upon global temperature projections obtained from low and high CO2 emissions climate model scenarios that were developed and addressed in the UN IPCC AR5 WGI report which was released last year.
In the UN WGI AR5 report the climate models were shown to exaggerate and overstate projected increases in global temperatures based on CO2 levels assumed present in the atmosphere compared to actual observed global temperatures. This is extremely important given that the WGII report uses these exaggerated climate model higher global temperature projection scenarios to assess climate risks associated with increasing global CO2 levels.

Figure 11.25a from the UN AR5 WGI climate report showing how climate models exaggerate and overstate global temperature projections resulting from increasing atmospheric CO2 levels compared to observed global temperatures . The UN AR5 WGII report utilizes these climate model exaggerated temperatures to define global risks associated with increasing CO2 levels resulting in greatly overstating future climate risks that are very likely invalid.
Thus the WGII report analysis overstates risks for given levels of atmospheric CO2 levels since as the report notes “Risks are reduced substantially under assumed scenarios with the lowest temperature projections compared to the highest temperature projections”.
The WGII report fails to mention or address that the AR5 WGI report showed that the CO2 driven temperature sensitivity of the earth based on actual global temperature observations is at the very lowest end of the low emissions climate model scenarios. This result reflects the consequence of the 15+ year long and growing global temperature pause which is never discussed in the UN WGII report.
This overriding AR5 WGI lower temperature CO2 atmospheric sensitivity result is simply concealed and ignored in the AR5 WGII final report which blithely goes on to make assessment after assessment of the impacts of increasing CO2 levels based on climate model temperature projections which have been shown to grossly exaggerate and overstate the global temperature increase impacts of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The climate model scenarios developed by the UN have other significant limitations beyond not being able to produce temperature projections that agree with measured global temperatures. These include that climate model temperature projections have no probabilities attached to their computed outcomes and that the resulting temperature projection outcomes are considered to be simply “plausible and illustrative”. Thus comparisons of climate model temperature outcomes to actually observed global temperatures is paramount to assessing whether these projections have validity.
The failure of the UN WGII report to utilize the results of the UN WGI report which showed that climate models grossly exaggerate and overstate global temperatures and then use these same flawed climate models to establish global temperature related risks associated with atmospheric CO2 levels means that the WGII claimed climate risk findings are both overstated and invalid.

In reply to Mr Wallace, the Earth’s surface area is around 510 Terameters. A Terameter is a 1 followed by 12 zeroes.
Not quite sure of the relevance of Kevin Loser’s point.
And in answer to Mr Valencia, when the UAH results become available I’ll be producing the monthly comparison between the mean of the RSS and UAH datasets, on the one hand, and the IPCC’s exaggerated predictions, on the other.
This is an interesting moment: for more than half of the satellite record, RSS shows no global warming at all.

Mr Hanlin has it absolutely right. The reluctance of the classe politique to accept the failure of the models is sociologically interesting.


” higher than normal levels of stratospheric aerosols due to volcanoes during the past decade, ”
Oh Please ! What’s “normal” ? in latter half of 20th c. there were three massive stratospheric eruptions and we saw marked warming. Since the have been basically sod-all. If you want to draw simplisitic conclusions, you’d have to say that the last decade has been way _below_ “normal”. The logical inference is that volcanoes cause warming, not cooling.
And that may not be a mad as it sounds. The tropics are almost fully immune to radiative forcing. When there’s a drop in coming , they just catch more of it.
Try to spot the cooling from those volcanoes. It just is not there.
Volcanoes cause warming in approximately equal measure to the direct cooling effect. They also help to compensate for extra-tropical regions. I’m writing an article on this right now.
The other thing I can show is that the volcanic forcing is actually stronger them modellers currently give it. They’ve just “adjusted” the input to the model to better fit the model which does not have strong negative feedbacks.
If you look at Lacis et al 1993 ( Hansen was a co-author ) they used a factor of 30 W/m^2 , based on proper physical science. Since they’ve down graded it fit the lack of corrective feedback in the models.
A classic case of don’t fix the model , fix the data.

That’s the Lacis 1992 value and the current Giss value. Even the Lacis value shows the climate responsed _before_ the optical effects of Mt Pinatubo rose up. Even that value may be somewhat undervalued.
The only way this adds up is if the climate have a strong negative feedback to radiative changes.

Joe Public

I admire your efforts on reporting the climate, but let’s not forget “….. one of the most disgraceful atrocities in the dismal history of warfare.” brought the conflict to an end saving the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
It was after all, the Japenese who attacked Pearl Harbour without warning.


“…one of the most disgraceful atrocities in the dismal history of warfare.”
I take exception to the above comment. It was a necessary act of war and one which doubtless saved more lives than it took.

Bruce Cobb

“The reasons post-hoc excuses for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation being desperately clutched at by a number of research groups.”
There, fixed.

Stephen Richards

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
April 5, 2014 at 11:25 am
There were other options than Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The decision was made based on the belief that the emporer would not surrender without maaive loss of civilian lives. I’m with Christopher Monckton and always have been. When studying for my first physics degree one of the subjects was health physics. The only data available at that time was Japanese. We now have Chernobyl and Fukashima. I support totally the use of nuclear power for the generation of electricity.

…….that the “PAUSE” or “PLATEAU” has set in, was in 2003, for the first time (Who knowns
an earlier paper? Please step foreward!) calculated in the paper: “L.B.Klyashtorin, A.A. Lyubushin: On the Coherence between Dynamics of the Worlds Fuel Consumption and
Global Temperatur Anomaly” , Energy and Environment, 14, no. 6 (2003)……available on “”.
It is the best and longest forecast in existence, which can claim accuracy and merits to be meticulously studied on their scientific approach……. [Willis, I am sure their approach is one
collar size too large for you….].
Those two authors deserve honour, because their 2003 forecast is still valid. On the opposite,
all above mentioned CMIP5-simulants must be sent straight to the Purgatory, because
they notoriously simulate wrong. The reason for this lies in the fact that they, on political
purpose, omit 5 major climate drivers.


Here’s the tropical climate reaction to a major stratospheric eruption:
Note the surge rubs out volcanic ‘forcing’ within a year, when there is still 50% of the aerosol density.

Stephen Richards

Christopher M
You cannot specify a surface area in metres. To calculate a surface area you must multiply one dimension by another. Metres x Metres is m².


I agree the warmistas correlation of Hiroshima bomb where it has anything to do with science. Maybe the warmistas need to read that between December 1937 and March 1938 at least 369,366 Chinese civilians and prisoners of war were slaughtered by Japanese invading troops. An estimated 80,000 women and girls were raped; many of them were then mutilated or murdered. Thousands of victims were beheaded, burned, bayoneted, buried alive, or disemboweled. To this day the Japanese government has refused to apologize for these and other World War II atrocities, and a significant sector of Japanese society denies that they took place at all.
But just as warmistas do in diverting from the disciplines of science, they freely regard their opposition Holocaust deniers. Which is another demonetization of nothing to do with climate or anything science.
Without another great el nino the farther this cooling stretch continues, your graph can extend in both directions almost simultaneously. Soon enough it will read “No Global Warming for 200 Years” then….

Theo Goodwin

“At last, at long last, the Pause is having its effect. The modelers, and those – such as the IPCC – who have until recently placed a naïve and complete faith in them to which no mathematician would have subscribed for an instant unless he had been very well paid to do so, are beginning, just beginning, to wake up and smell the coffee. Will somebody tell the politicians before they squander any more of your money and mine?”
Excellent work. Let’s see if they try to put the genie back in the bottle.


A poster brought out this point a while back, and I think it bears repeating.
If you have a child in high school (17 years old and in grade 11-12 in Canada) all they have heard throughout their lifetime is how global warming is going to harm the planet and eventually destroy humankind. Yet, for their whole lifetime there has been no global warming. What are these young people to think about today’s climate “scientists” ?. (I use the word scientist loosely when applying it to climate.) As I said, when a poster brought this point up it gave me pause to reflect on what the young people must think.


And it we model the response as a linear relaxation to equilibrium it fits pretty damn well.
And this is done with volcanic forcing about 50% stronger than GISS currently use, and most others reckon GISS values are too strong.
All this is because they refuse to recognise the presence of negative feedbacks in climate an prefer to adjust the input data than to correct the models.

Stop the cheesy groveling lol

The models are clearly wrong. !he fact that our wonderful Met Office uses the same models to make their hopelessly inaccurate weather forecasts, together with the 212 month pause should make the “Believers” see that they are wrong. Sadly I do not think it will make a jot of difference to their thinking.
If as Christopher has suggested, the el Niño event causes atmospheric temperatures to rise, then the “Believers” will be telling us that AGW has resumed, because all the heat that miraculously disappeared into the oceans has miraculously reappeared!
AGW theory of course transcends the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Sam Hall

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says: “Those two bombs cost many Japanese lives, but saved countless American ones. Given ALL that we know, and given the time and opportunity again, it was STILL the right thing to do, and (on a different continent) Bomber Harris was still correct in every thing he did – including Dresden. ”
I am an American and I agree with you. My father was a Marine in that war and I might not be here if we had not dropped those bombs.
I still think we should have dropped 4 to 8 W-88 bombs on Mecca after 911. If we had, we wouldn’t be having the problems we are with Islam.

Bruce Cobb

Hiroshima was tragic, and therein lies the heinousness of their use of the term. Emperor Hirohito is equally to blame, if not more so. He was given ample warning, and chose either to use his own citizenry as human shields, or to believe that the U.S. was bluffing.


It isn’t just after 1998. Before 1998 the models are far more likely to be on the high side of the actual temperatures. Furthermore, presenting a yellow “band” of CMIP5 is highly misleading, as it suggests that there are single models that spend most of their time near the lower border. There may be, but nearly all of them bounce between the lower and the upper border. Even though there are pre-1998 ranges were the “CMIP5 envelope” includes the temperature (on the low edge of things) or where the temperature fluctuates up into the yellow, there actually might not be a single model in CMIP5 that spends any significant fraction of its time below the actual RSS temperature.
So they are well advised to be honest and take the pause seriously. It is strong evidence that the models are failing, and as you point out there are numerous reasons (and always have been) that they might fail. It isn’t even “surprising” — in any field but climate science one would expect to fail, fail for decades, if one were trying to solve a problem half as difficult as quantitatively predicting the climate with inadequate data, inadequate computational resources, an inadequate theory, and the complication of an enormous dose of human bias.

Mr Richards is of course correct: Tm should have been Tm^2. However, the calculation dependent on it was correct.
[Done. Mod]

Excuse me but your opinion of Hiroshima is dead wrong and based upon ignorance and emotion rather than historical fact. We were involved in a total war, perhaps you forgot. I never gave much credence to the surprise attack scenario. The attack on the US was inevitable and a declaration of war is small potatoes.FDR wanted us to be attacked so he could have a united nation boiling over with righteous anger. This was what he got. But your revisionist and insulting slap at our history is dead wrong and you should retract it. I have a letter, from my father,written two days before thefirst atomic bomb; it was a tentative goodbye letter to my mother. My father like many cobat troops was already part of the force chosen to go to Japan for the invasion which was expected to have huge casualties. I can tell you, that as far as I and my brother concerned and many thousands of othersin the same boat, that we were overjoyed my father did not have to land in Japan and die there, or be wounded or crippled. Your historical ignorance is shocking in this context, please rectify it. I do agree with your climate stance, of course, but this is an important issue,imo.

michael hart

Other than 17 years=1 Santer as a possible unit for representing lack of catastrophic anthropogenic global-warming, what are the other candidates?


It was unfortunate that the Japanese having lost the war before the home islands, except Okinawa, had been invaded, did not surrender. However you can not ignore the Marine, soldier, and sailor deaths and ships sunk in the reduction of this one island. The loses of American and
British and Japanese lives that would occurred if the home islands were invaded would have been horrendous, much greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Japanese were given opportunities to end the war prior to the bomb dropping but the war cabinet could not envision surrender. Just like so few Japanese surrendered during the island hopping campaigns it would have been a slaughter if the invasion had occurred. The bombs gave the Emperor the reason to override the military government.


Monckton loses much of my respect due to Hiroshima crack. The Japanese were a savage enemy with stubbornly homicidal and suicidal tactics (kamikaze, banzai charges, suicide naval missions, biological warfare, etc.) and strategy.
What would Monckton preferred, the oncoming amphibious invasion? Would he like to look back on
Dieppe X 800;
Gallipoli X 20;
Normandy X 25?
And these are just invasion deaths, not casualties, not losses of defenders or civilians. This Monckton prefers? Oh, the first two failed, BTW.
You want atrocities? Dresden, Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin…
Not to insult our UK friends (and allies), but a POME like Monckton seems good at climate, but knee-jerk anti-American in his history.


Normandy X 250

David Riser

It should be said that the Pacific conflict (7Dec1941-15Aug1945) was the most horrific bit of war ever between two combatants (Axis and Allies). Most of the fighting was without quarter. Atrocities occurred on both sides. The death toll was staggering. Only the promise of complete destruction of Japan brought about their surrender. In my opinion it is a gross disrespect to the dead of both sides to use this war in any way involving climate activism.


His Lordship disapproves of the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That can be argued about on both practical and moral grounds. But when The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley says: “Bomber Harris was still correct in every thing he did – including Dresden” I wonder what TTGOBJC’s justification for that is. If he can give just one proven ‘benefit’ of bombing Dresden I will be mighty impressed. Please don’t claim that it greatly disrupted the transport system. It didn’t. The railways were back to running within four days of the bombing. Please don’t claim that it assisted the Red Army. It didn’t, except that it gave the Soviet Union a stick with which to beat the Western Powers for decades thereafter. Please don’t claim it destroyed important war industries. It didn’t: Dresden produced hardly anything of military importance. Please don’t claim that it shortened the war by inflicting terror on the Germans. It didn’t. If inflicting terror had any effect it would have had effect after Hamburg, Cologne and all the earlier raids. Germany gave up when their armies were defeated, not when the government caved into civilian – or even military – pressure from bombing.
No more comments or opinions or discussion in this thread on the Lord’s single use of one phrase about one bombing.
Stay on topic: temperature, models, global (and local) trends. Climate. Mod]


Sorry Mod, you’re correct.
But the comment as a slur.



Steve in Seattle

Regarding the statistic of 510 Tarameters ( Tera ? ) squared, I have a question. What percentage is water ?

Of one thing we can be sure: confirmed warmists will NEVAH attempt to calculate the probability
of this extended period of warming, using their ironclad assumptions displayed elsewhere.

Steve in Seattle

Answered my own question : 70.8 percent. 196.9 million square miles, in English units, for total area, a number I can more relate to.

Could a super El Nino cause the 1998 record for RSS to be broken in 2014? Can 2014 end with the 17 year pause in tact?
The average anomaly in 1998 was 0.55. The average for the first three months this year so far is 0.213. So a simple equation can be set up as follows to see what average would be required for the remaining 9 months to set a record.
12(0.55) = 3(0.213) + 9x. Solving for x gives 0.66. Naturally this is above 0.55, but a more important number now is what is the highest 9 month average during the 1998 super El Nino. According to the following plot of RSS with a mean of 9 months, that number is 0.63.
Of course this is below 0.66, however the 9 month average at the start of the 1998 El Nino was around 0, whereas it is around 0.2 now. So the climb to potentially set a record is not as high.
It is possible for an El Nino that is almost as strong as the 1998 El Nino to set a record, however things have to move fast. The April anomaly for RSS does not necessarily have to be 0.66, but as a guess, I would say it should jump to at least 0.4 from 0.213 now and then it must make good jumps in the next months. According to the graph above, when the December number for RSS is in, the new 9 month height must be just above the 1998 nine month height in order for a new record to be set.
I would be very surprised if 2014 broke the 1998 record. In 1997, the El Nino started in May 1997 and the peak did not come until about March 1998. Right now, we are still in neutral so there is just not enough time in my opinion to break the 1998 mark this year. As for 2015, who knows?
By the same argument, if we assume it takes a while for an El Nino to form and for it to affect RSS temperatures, I predict that at least to the end of 2014, RSS will still have over 17 years of pause. To verify this for yourself, note the area BELOW the line in the top graph of this post between August 1996 and December 1997. If temperatures do spike, the August 1996 date has a bit of room to be moved forward until December 1997 is hit.

a p

If you listen to some politicians, it has never stopped. now seriously have you heard of ICE melting in a perfectly good functing freezer. I am sure some politica or algore will claim this

Chad Wozniak

My guess is the warmists will still find some climate-based rationale to tax and regulate everything to death, confiscate the fruits of our labor, and oppress us in every detail of our daily lives, no matter now long the “pause” (actually now the cooling) continues. Let’s not forget that their agenda really has nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with misanthropy and greed.


Steve in Seattle says:
April 5, 2014 at 12:56 pm “Regarding the statistic of 510 Tarameters ( Tera ? ) squared, I have a question. What percentage is water ?”
I am curious if 70.8% represents just ocean coverage? It seems logical that since Greenland and Antarctica are also covered with water that it be included in the percentage of the globe covered with water, regardless of being solid or liquid.

Daniel G.

A stylistic nitpick:
When a unit occurs in exponentiation, for example, in km^2, the size prefix (k) is considered part of the unit, and thus included in the exponentiation.
A square kilometer is 10^6 square meters, not 10^3 square meters, and so on:
1 Tm^2 = (10^12)^2 m^2 = 10^24 m^2
Earth’s surface area is 510,000,000 km^2 = 510 * 10^6 * (10^3)^2 m^2 = 510 * 10^12 m^2
That is 510 Mm^2
Honestly, it looks like you were trying to be “clever” with SI units.
[Rather, 510 Mkm^2 ? Mod]

MaxLD says:
April 5, 2014 at 11:49 am
Yet, for their whole lifetime there has been no global warming.
Your statement is misstated. Their whole lifetime has so far experienced a very warm period in time. What will those children think as the next several decades descends into a cooler climate?


Despite I’m 35 in every single moment of my life the warming was pausing:
Do you understand: every day of my life I coud say “warming stopped x years ago” and prove it with the above graph (i.e. proper fragment of it).
I could aso add that 1997/1998 warming stop is clearly visible:
in the HadCRU data:
in the NASA GISS data:
in the RSS data:
and in thie UAH data:


“incorrect ozone levels used as input to the models”
How does that happen, and would that not be easy to identify?
That statement in and of itself, is very troubling and telling ….

Interesting! The scale on the graph above, is it relative to the scale of actual recorded temperature variation? my guess is no! because it would look like a straight line.

Paul Vaughan

New Animation (polar views added 2014-04-05) (background):
Sun-Climate Multidecadal (MD) Wave = Marcia Wyatt’s “Stadium” Wave

highflight56433 says:
April 5, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Steve in Seattle says:
April 5, 2014 at 12:56 pm “Regarding the statistic of 510 Tarameters ( Tera ? ) squared, I have a question. What percentage is water ?”
Could the differences between the north and south hemispheres be pointing to the main reason why the models fail? Note that the models fit the best into the upper NH, where the greatest land mass resides. Does this indicate how poorly their understanding of oceanic dynamics and effects are? That looks like their major fail spot. I can usually make good connections by reading graphs. Yet, I see no connections between CMIP5 and RSS TLT. Even in the NH graph, where the RSS sits the best within CMIP, there is no correlation between the peaks and valleys of CMIP5 to the observed shifts in the real world, except by coincidence.