Happy Anniversary: 1 October Marks 18 Years Without Global Warming Trend

Via The GWPF Global Warming Pause Comes Of Age

The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st. –Barbara Hollingsworth, CBS News, 30 September 2014


Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to August 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 11 months.


More on the “The pause” here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/04/global-temperature-update-no-global-warming-for-17-years-11-months

What will the Warming Pause do next? Get a job? Go on a gap year? Maybe go to college and rack up some proper student debt. Who knows, but it’s worth celebrating the good news that the planet’s temperatures are not accelerating to thermageddon. –Josh, Bishop Hill 1 October 2014

The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. –Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 5 July 2005

Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. -Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 7 May 2009

2014 will probably be in the top five warmest, but at the moment it will probably not turn out to be warmer than 2010. It is impossible for it to beat 2010 by a statistically significant margin, even if we define that as only one standard deviation above the decadal mean. Even if 2014 does beat 2010 it will only be by a statistically insignificant margin and well within the inter-annual error bars. In all probability 2014 will continue the global surface temperature standstill in a statistically perfect manner. When will the global surface annual temperature start to rise out of the error bars of the past 18 years? –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Forum, 28 September 2014

It’s fair to say that this pause is something of an embarrassment to many in the climate research community, since their computer models failed to indicate that any such thing could happen. Just how long the temperature pause must last before it would falsify the more catastrophic versions of man-made climate change obviously remains an open question for many researchers. For the time being, most are betting that it will get real hot real fast when the hiatus ends. –Ronald Bailey, Reason Online, 9 September 2014

Former United Kingdom environment secretary Owen Paterson launched an attack against the “wicked green blob,” saying policies to stop global warming might do more harm than good. “There has not been a temperature increase now for probably 18 years, some people say 26 years,” Paterson told an audience at the Conservative party conference over weekend. “So the pause is old enough to vote, the pause is old enough to join the army, the pause is old enough to pay its taxes.” –Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 29 September 2014

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 1, 2014 7:44 am

Time to sell Global warming and short it. I Got an insideer tip from the sun.
BTW, this is off topic but I have been seeing lots of Hail storms in 2014 across the globe. I wonder how solar panels hold up to falling Hail.

Reply to  njsnowfan
October 1, 2014 8:02 am

Hail degrades solar panels more than just rain and dust does, that’s for sure.

Reply to  njsnowfan
October 1, 2014 9:24 am

it bounces right off them…..literally 🙂
its got to wreak havoc on them I would suspect.

Reply to  njsnowfan
October 1, 2014 3:17 pm

Depends on the size of the hailstones.

Reply to  njsnowfan
October 2, 2014 11:27 am

It depends if they are global warming hailstones. If so then they definitely cause damage. However if they are carbon neutral hailstones they cause no damage at all and in fact can be beneficial according to my model.

Ralph Kramden
October 1, 2014 7:48 am

most are betting that it will get real hot real fast when the hiatus ends
Of course they are, their phoney baloney jobs depend on it.

Reply to  Ralph Kramden
October 1, 2014 12:33 pm

I for one will take that bet! How much does he want to wager of his OWN MONEY?

Reply to  Ralph Kramden
October 1, 2014 3:18 pm

heap big warmy!!!

October 1, 2014 7:49 am

The pause bothers me. Not for the reason it bother’s the usual suspects, but because I have a hard time believing the temperature could remain that static for so long.
I can’t believe that the temperature would be adjusted to hide an increase, and that has led me to wonder if it might in fact be chilling, only slightly, and the data is being frantically adjusted to hide this.
For the best reasons of course.because if people knew it had chilled slightly, they might be inclined to think GW was false, and not realize we are still in terrible, terrible danger of being flooded and cooked once the natural temperature rise resumes. sarc/

Travis Casey
Reply to  peter
October 1, 2014 8:26 am

The official adjusters (Gavin, et al.) still show an increase from 1998, just slower. 2002, 2005, 2010, and 2014 have all been adjusted up to near 1998 levels by extrapolating from areas where we have no data. The thermageddonite party line is that natural variation has slowed, but not stopped the warming. When the pendulum swings the other way, look out!
I’m going by memory on the years listed above.

Reply to  Travis Casey
October 2, 2014 1:02 am

“When the pendulum swings the other way, look out! ”
Currently the ‘pendulum’ is strong enough to cancel out that anthropogenic element of global warming. From c1970 to c2005 the ‘pendulum’ was swinging the other way but the climate models wrongly assumed that all the increase, rather than about half of it, was anthropogenic.

Reply to  peter
October 1, 2014 8:31 am

Take a look at a longer timeline for the temperature data and it shows a downward trend.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  peter
October 1, 2014 9:41 am

I attribute this to thermal inertia of the oceans. The oceans have been heating overall since the Dalton Minimum because the solar maximums have been relatively high since that time, up until our recent solar maximum. Once this positive force [solar irradiance] is removed from the object [oceans] thermal inertia causes a plateau before a decrease.
I know a lot of people will disagree with this because solar irradiance only varies by 0.1-0.2% and therefore can’t account for the changes in temperature of the ocean and atmosphere. However, UV light varies by up to 10% and UV light penetrates water much deeper than visible light does. Also, these direct measurements of the sun have never been taken while the sun was in a slump like that during the Maunder or Dalton Minimum. If the next solar cycle is as inactive as some are predicting then the solar influence theory will soon be put to the test.

Reply to  peter
October 1, 2014 9:44 am

the temp is not static.
If you choose to do a LINEAR regression, then the slop of that line will be close to zero.
the temperature is not static. the slope of the regression line is flatish.
If you choose a linear regression.. which is not the most obvious or defensible choice.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 1, 2014 10:16 am

Agreed: However, the CAGW crowd use these metrics precisely to show a trend, upwards. Using their metric, illustrates how wrong they are.

James Strom
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 1, 2014 10:53 am

“slope”. I thought for a moment Mosher had introduced a new technical term.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 1, 2014 11:04 am

If we use a normal temperature scale, we get a chart that isn’t very scary:

Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 1, 2014 1:30 pm

dbstealy: Your chart appears to be using Fahrenheit degrees above zero. The point is well made, though I would prefer Kelvin degrees above zero.

NZ Willy
Reply to  peter
October 1, 2014 12:15 pm

The temperature of the “pause” is static precisely because that zero slope is the criterion used to determine the length of the pause. The zero slope is the independent variable, the length of the pause is the dependent variable. In other words, if you extend the baseline one more month into the past, then the slope becomes positive so there is no pause over 18 years & one month. Capeesh?

Reply to  NZ Willy
October 1, 2014 1:32 pm

Yes, and if you extend it far enough into the past (millions of years) the slope can be made to be negative.

October 1, 2014 7:50 am

The environmental activists don’t care and will ignore the data. Their real goal is reversing the industrial revolution by limiting energy production and consumption. The means is restricting CO2 emissions in a world where most fear nuclear power.

Reply to  Ron Scubadiver
October 1, 2014 8:48 am

How can we possibly save enough natural resources for the elites and ultrarich, who will hopefully survive their efforts to depopulate the earth down to 500 million people? We are so selfish not to protect the earth for them and their progeny.

tom s
October 1, 2014 7:52 am

P D O 🌁

Billy Liar
Reply to  tom s
October 1, 2014 9:37 am

Does that mean ‘pretty damned obvious – it’s the clouds’?

October 1, 2014 7:52 am

“Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” -Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 7 May 2009
Before we get worried? Lays pretty clear that their motivation is more focused on preserving funding than it is on saving the Earth.

Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 1, 2014 7:56 am

Good catch and tells the tale. The last thing the global warmers want is an end to the warming.

Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 1, 2014 8:07 am

I asked a watermelon friend “Wouldn’t it be great if it stopped warming?” They just couldn’t comprehend the question, much less offer a response. …and they are the smart ones? Too funny!

Reply to  Eric Sincere
October 1, 2014 9:03 am

Well in their true fashion they could hardly have said: ” But Eric, haven’t you heard, it stopped warming 18 years ago”.

Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 1, 2014 8:15 am

They can’t miss the gravy train. It’s the last one and it’s about to leave the station.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 1, 2014 11:01 am

Can someone ask Phil if he is now officially worried.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 1, 2014 2:11 pm

Fabulous idea…I’d love to hear his spin-Meistersinger self squirm in response.
But of course he’d tell you it’s really warming.. ANDY, if you don’t believe me, ask Dr? Mann………
Oh Mann!……:-)

October 1, 2014 7:56 am

This is why “they” have to keep adjusting current temperatures up and older temperatures down…. to hide that it’s basically paused for 18 years.

Reply to  John
October 1, 2014 8:55 am

“Pause”? “Hiatus”? – I thought these terms meant a break or interval.
In what? In normal climate change? Or in a politically-constructed expectation of catastrophic warming that has not eventuated.
Pause and Hiatus are PR constructions.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  Tim
October 1, 2014 2:36 pm

I think the word you’re looking for is ‘stopped’. No PR in that one.

Reply to  Tim
October 1, 2014 2:54 pm

Not paused, not stopped, not even plateaued.
Enjoy the view from this position, because from now on this roller coaster is heading downward.

October 1, 2014 7:58 am

When the phrase “global warming” is defined as in this article, the global warming in a specified interval in time has multiple numerical values. A consequence is for non-contradiction to be negated. Non-contradiction is one of the classical laws of thought.

October 1, 2014 7:59 am

Pause or plateau???

Reply to  mwhite
October 1, 2014 9:21 am

It’s a duck billed plateaupause.

Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 9:28 am

+1, for sure.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 10:52 am

Way to go, Jimbo!

Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 11:08 am

Heck, why be stingy? +1.5!

Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 12:01 pm

Yes, it laid an egg.

Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 12:50 pm

You win the Groaner Award

Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 1:14 pm

Nice one

Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 1:32 pm

How about a F*ck Phil Plateaupause

M Seward
Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 2:03 pm

The Brits were convinced we Aussies were having them on when the first platypus made its way to the UK. They just didn’t believe it possible and we have been gently taking the piss out of them at every opportunity since. Fortunately they are good sports and just give it back in kind. A life lesson for the CAGWarmistas?

M Seward
Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 2:09 pm

PS We just did it again but this time it actually was a joke and they fell for it!
We sent them Lewndowsky!
Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk

Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 5:09 pm

Thought it was a TAXPAYER-billed plateaupause?

Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 6:30 pm

Or a minipause that is giving all the warmists hot flashes…

Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 8:30 pm

OK, OK, OK … So we now must describe the Taxpayer-Billed PlateauPause
Certainly, it must first present the taxpayer-bill, but is it fiend or foul, mammal or avian?
Yes, it must always moose the data, and hide the decline for leather or purse, richer or poorer, in sickness and health care.
Surely it can duck the hard questions, while feathering its nest for the next quarter’s funding.
Yeah, and it must have two good ayes, or it could never pass the three-way peer-review exam.
Yet it carries its tale forward while pushing for progress for the next annual migration backwards.
Which is in front? The model of decorum, or the statistical means justifying the end?

george e. smith
October 1, 2014 8:01 am

Earth to MSM.
It ain’t a pause. Global warming has stopped.
And it has left us with no plausible explanation for stopping. Nor has it given us a clue as to whether the next non-zero trend direction will be warming or cooling.
We’ll just have to wait and see. Statistics is NOT predictive, of anything except how surprised we will be when we see what happens next.

Reply to  george e. smith
October 1, 2014 1:16 pm

Do you mean no plausible explanation or no pausible explanation for the pause.

george e. smith
Reply to  MikeB
October 1, 2014 2:49 pm

I distinctly remember saying there is no pause. It’s a stop, and I said there is no plausible explanation for the stop. Only used the word “pause” once, to say it isn’t one of those. So keep your paws offen my posts !

Reply to  MikeB
October 1, 2014 3:15 pm

No paws on your pause, said Pa.

October 1, 2014 8:04 am

Found this
The five most quoted temperature anomalies all on one graph

Reply to  mwhite
October 1, 2014 8:12 am

This is clearly a modified chart. The data has been up-trended. MWhite, are you a troll or do you just post troll-ish information?

Reply to  Eric Sincere
October 1, 2014 8:26 am

It is modified to start before 1997.

Reply to  Eric Sincere
October 1, 2014 9:22 am

No up-trending. It shows stable temperatures at least since 2003. The graph is from http://www.climate4you.com which is driven by Dr. Humlum. The smoothing and averaging is explained there. Visit the site, it has many interesting plots (and Humlum is certainly not pro AGW).

Reply to  mwhite
October 1, 2014 10:08 am

Anyone else notice a six year period in this data? What causes that? (Sorry, I am new to this).

Reply to  mwhite
October 1, 2014 12:54 pm

Interesting that the “platuepause” (see above) is now longer than the increase during the satellite era.

Reply to  mwhite
October 1, 2014 8:33 pm

Ok. So you found it. Where did you find it? 8<)
Excellent graph! – But if others cannot also find it, your help is tantalizing, but not effective.

tom s
October 1, 2014 8:12 am

OT slightly, but I got top billing on the editorial page of our 250,000 circulation local neighborhood bi-weekly paper where i dismantle the “weather is getting more extreme” nonsense. John Abrams of University of St Thomas fame and first order Alarmist frequently contributes and wrote a letter this issue. Ha!! My letter spans top of page, his is down below in the regular space. I live in what is likely the bluest county in US. So should be interesting when my liberal neighbors (whom I like by and large) see me aftr reading this. I was quite civil and showed the empirical data with source but in my closing paragraph I said I was ashamed of our president for promoting the misinformation that, ‘ The weather is getting more extreme’… Oh the horror!!😊🌀

David S
Reply to  tom s
October 1, 2014 8:59 am

You’re a brave man. You present facts. But to the liberal crowd facts don’t matter. To them global warming is real, regardless of facts. And 2+2 =5 if Al Gore says so.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  David S
October 1, 2014 9:20 pm

2 + 2 = 5, for large values of 2.

Reply to  tom s
October 1, 2014 10:19 am

“John Abrams of University of St Thomas fame . . .”
I think you mean John Abraham.

October 1, 2014 8:17 am

In a few more years the so-called “pause” will have married and settled down to raise a family.

Reply to  mpainter
October 1, 2014 8:27 am

The pitter patter of little pauselets?

Reply to  MarkW
October 1, 2014 9:46 am

L’dOL to that one!

October 1, 2014 8:22 am

This attributes the article to CBS News when in fact the author writes for CNS News.

Reply to  Nick
October 1, 2014 10:30 am

I noticed that too. Strange…

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
October 2, 2014 6:48 am

Easily dismissed as a typo.

October 1, 2014 8:24 am

Hey RFK, Jr. Choke on this, buddy.

October 1, 2014 8:29 am

How low do you have to dial ECS in the models to get an 18year flat line?

Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 1, 2014 9:18 am

After all the years of medical themed shows on TV, everyone should know by now that flat-lining equates to being dead. And an 18 yr flat line should be, “she’s not only merely dead, she’s really most sincerely dead”.
Or in the words of my favorite TV doctor…
“He’s dead, Jim.”

Reply to  mjc
October 1, 2014 10:59 am

That parrot isn’t dead. it is pining for the fjords.

Reply to  mjc
October 1, 2014 1:19 pm

Turns out your friend here is only mostly dead. There’s a pretty big difference between being mostly dead and all dead…

October 1, 2014 8:30 am

Sic transit calefactio mundi.

October 1, 2014 8:38 am

Mankind is still responsible for more than 50% of that no warming in 18 years though, right? Just want to make sure I understand that I’m still considered a climate felon for life and no stretch of stable or falling temperatures is long enough to absolve us of our collective CO2 crimes agains nature.

Kevin Benn
October 1, 2014 8:38 am

Couldn’t resist sending my poem once again – having altered 17 to 18…
Life is a gas – CO2 –
(And oxygen, of course)
But to say that it drives the climate
Puts proverbial cart before horse.
What Al Gore said in his lecture,
Unbacked by observable proof,
Turned out to be pure conjecture –
An inconvenient truth…
The ice-core samples from Vostok
Plotting temperature change over time
Revealed that in fact CO2 change
Lags hundreds of years behind.
Greenland was green when the Vikings
Settled a millennium ago;
While Frost Fairs were held on the Thames
Six centuries later, or so.
The IPCC used a Mann-made stick
To flatten this bumpy graph
To prove to us all – Q.E.D. –
That this life-giving gas ‘ain’t no larf!’
They say, thanks to human endeavour,
Our carbon footprints expand
Playing all hell with the weather
And flooding both ocean and land.
Once upon a time, CO2
Was a colourless, non-toxic gas;
Now: ”an anthropogenic emission”
On a mission to fry us, en masse.
The bottom line is that this substance,
In solid or gaseous form,
Will turn the world into a greenhouse
Globally warmer than warm!
Mass production and consumption
Took off at the end of the war.
Despite Kyoto, COPs and Cap’n trade
CO2 levels continue to soar.
Fossil fuels, factories and flying machines
All add their bit to a graph
That rises each year relentlessly
When it ought to be falling by half.
The temperature curve, however,
Just will not play the game:
Rise, fall, rise for a century
Now 18 years the same!
Elaborate computer models
Are the IPCC’s crystal ball
None of which have predicted
The recent no-warming-at-all!
Climate Science is now a religion
Where AGW is PC
And the MSM censure everything
Bar the Gospel of IPCC.
So worship the great god Consensus,
Believe what it tells you is Truth;
Or else you’ll be branded Denier
And your views will be taken as proof!
High Priest Strong said at Rio –
Leaving Greens to fill in the gaps –
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet
That the industrialised nations collapse?”
Now that’s hardly a secret agenda;
The Club of Rome endorsed it too:
”All we need is the right major crisis…”
And the scapegoat is – you know who!
So now parties of all creeds and colours
Kowtow to this climate-smart code:
Nature should be a museum
Back in pre-industrial mode.
The Germans have ‘Energiewende’,
Swopping nuclear power for coal;
The Brits import timber from Canada
To spruce up their CO2 goal.
The Green Lobby looks to the UN
To tax us all off the map.
Survivors will catch the Royal Virus,
Prince Philip – jolly old chap!
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Future
Has billions of new mouths to feed.
So ‘power plants’ must be provided
To supply them with all that they need.
Electricity and food for all
Means carbon dioxide, you see,
In South America, Africa, Asia…
Rather than just you and me.
Now 120 parts per million –
The parts that we’ve added, let’s say –
Plus a period of gentle warming
Have made the Earth greener today
Yet ask any market gardener
What the Greenhouse Effect means to them
And they’ll tell you that king-sized veggies
Crave 1200 ppm.
The more CO2, then, the better;
Photosynthesis thrives on the stuff.
So frack up both shale gas and oil,
Of which there is more than enough!
And let us pray Global Warming
Doesn’t take a turn for the worse
As its cousin, Global Cooling,
Is definitely more of a curse.
For the Little Ice Age was no picnic:
No sunspots, no food, no fun;
And the sun’s present spotless condition
Suggests a new cold spell has begun.
So the IPCC have a problem if –
Despite the hot air they exhale –
Their cheeks and the climate start turning
A whiter shade of pale.
For Climate Change is the default,
The null-hypothetical state.
On those that say Man overrides this
The burden of proof is great.
For the climate has always been changing;
Change is here to stay.
As King Canute showed on the seashore,
Man cannot keep Nature at bay!
So, historians, when you review our time
And our hysterical CO2 Show,
Lay not the blame on us poor clowns
For your landscape of ice and snow…
Kevin Benn

Reply to  Kevin Benn
October 1, 2014 1:17 pm

Kev you have a very long but good poem there.

Walt Allensworth
October 1, 2014 8:39 am

The pause is 18? Well that’s inconvenient! 😉

October 1, 2014 8:40 am

“Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. ”
What me worry?

October 1, 2014 8:40 am

Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. -Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 7 May 2009
Worried? Why “worried”?

Reply to  tim maguire
October 1, 2014 9:32 am

Funding dry up.

Billy Liar
Reply to  tim maguire
October 1, 2014 9:45 am

Worried their conjecture is junk.

October 1, 2014 8:42 am

The Whack-A-Mole game will continue until we find a way to deal with the root causes and provide a solution.
I’m speaking of the TRUE “climate change refugees” here, namely the thousands upon thousands of researchers/professors/administrators, in all of the colleges and governmental positions, who’s entire livelihood depend on furthering the research on this subject.
If empirical evidence, easily understood and indisputable were introduced tomorrow, within a month the ranks of the unemployed would swell, families destroyed, homes foreclosed on, cars repossessed, pensions eliminated…
If you’re 45, wife and kids at home, happily employed as Mole in the great game, what happens to you? Other scientific fields are likely ill-suited to your expertise, and even those that are could not possible handle the influx.
My answer is to do what we did for banks, which was essentially to say “Ok…you’ve all gotten yourself in a bad way, so we’ll help you out JUST THIS ONE time…”
We repurpose the funding going into the research and we buy them out, period. Nice one-time severance package, their taken care of, and yes, I know it cuts against every grain to reward them, but how else could we possible stop the insanity?…and my bet without running the numbers is that we could offer a buyout package to them for less than is being spent on staying the present course.
Only when this issue gets solved will they stop. They’re fighting for their careers, their families, and their financial security, and they’ll continue fighting as long as they’re able, as would the rest of us, right?

Reply to  jimmaine
October 1, 2014 9:37 am

For some reason, the solution RFK Jr. wanted for us, strikes me as appropriate to them.
At least I’m not advocating 350.org’s solution.

Ben Wilson
Reply to  jimmaine
October 1, 2014 10:34 am

Excellent insight and summary. . . .

Reply to  Ben Wilson
October 1, 2014 2:02 pm

The problem, of course, is that Dear Leader is making this his legacy…since every other option for that has been taken off the table by his own actions.
That means that most of the liberal party will still do everything possible to promote it.
They have little choice in the matter, it’s pretty much the only issue that remains untainted by his actions.
Can’t run on foreign policy, screwed that up seven ways to Sunday…same with economy, jobs, exit from Iraq, domestic security…the list goes on.
But Climate Change can still hook votes. It’s like proposing a raise for teachers…you pretty much guarantee every teacher/union will vote for you. With Climate Change, push the alarmist points, and everyone on that train is going to support it, even if they know it to be nothing but faux science.

October 1, 2014 8:47 am

The ALARMIST will suffer some-timer-ism followed with mental-pause with hot flashes. There is medication that can help.
The symptoms are selective forgetfulness and bouts of hot headedness for no apparent reason other than someone saying have a nice day.

Robert Wykoff
October 1, 2014 8:48 am

I keep hearing this top 5 hottest ever meme. In 2014, I have been all over the US and 6 other countries in south america, the middle east, and south east asia to boot. In all of those places I do not remember a single heat wave or unusual temperature. I do not remember reading about any unusual heat waves. On the contrary, what I remember about 2014 was a lot of unusual cold. So i humbly ask, where on earth was all of this heat to make it the fifth hottest ever? I will bet that most of it happened in places where people don’t actually live

Reply to  Robert Wykoff
October 1, 2014 9:21 am

Antarctica…where one station with high temps got smeared over half the continent.

Reply to  Robert Wykoff
October 1, 2014 9:27 am

It did not happen on the satellite reconstructions. The others use homegenization techniques that look spiffy mathematically but raise lots of questions physically.
Here are the adjustments to the xxx record broken down by month.comment image
from this
I am not sure I understand why the same thermometer reads too high in the summer and too low in the winter. You can also see the clear bias the adjustments have.
and here you see GISS adjustments for the same year changing as the datasets age.comment image
from this
I am not sure I understand the physical property the adjustments are reflecting when the resulting temperature is a function of when the dataset is released.
Personally, I don’t know what the long term temperature trend is, because there are so many different reconstructions and they change every year and all the non satellite ones seem to get most of their slope from math. I don’t know if its a good technique or not, but whenever they say we have a record, I guess they are quoting from a ground station/ocean station reconstruction that has subtracted a few degrees from the 30’s and added a bit to the current. It also could be a convenient artifact of the math. As time goes by the homogenization algorithms change today’s temperature. So today they can say its the hottest temperature ever, then next year, that temp will have been cooled by math, so they can again say this year’s temp is the hottest.
I just can’t get my head around the fact that all the climate studies are based on these temperature records. If the adjustments are wrong, is there any global warming?

Reply to  JohnnyCrash
October 1, 2014 9:39 am

Sorry the “xxx” record was the USHCN. I’m not a scientist, just a software developer (with an Aerospace Engineering degree for some reason). I’ll be the first to admit I know where the two satellite records come from, but all the ground station based records confuse the heck out of me. Are there separate groups of ground stations? I think the US has 2 or 3, then there is the MET and the aussies have at least one, and a whole bunch of other countries too. Then there are ocean stations… i think. I think a lot of ocean temperature readings are taking by ships as they cross the ocean, and I think there are some buoys possibly. I know we now have argo buoys. I would love for someone to point me somewhere where I can get clarification on this mess.

John Snow
Reply to  JohnnyCrash
October 1, 2014 9:45 am

I know you can get into trouble selecting specific time ranges but… just look at the raw data from 1970 forward. I see a horizontal line for the average. No warming for the last 44 years?

Richard Day
October 1, 2014 8:52 am

There is one thing that has an upward linear trend that no amount of homogenization, manipulation or torture will change: the number of excuses for the “pause”.

Reply to  Richard Day
October 1, 2014 9:22 am

In fact charting out the excuses vs time shows a real nice ‘hockey stick’.

Shawn from High River
October 1, 2014 8:53 am

I tried to explain this fact to a true believer friend of mine. He simply refused to believe that global warming stopped 18 years ago.I showed him graphs and the ipcc ar5 report and more.
Then he spouted off that there were a few of “the hottest months ever on record!” Then he jumped to sea ice (I then showed him Antarctic ice is largest on record) then he jumped to polar bear population(which I showed him were largest now ever on record) then he jumped to sea level rise etc….I finally gave up and told him he is free to believe whatever religion he wants.
I guess when you have been taught something as fact your entire life,its very difficult to counteract the misinformation. Instead of being happy that humanity, at least at this point, seems not be in imminenet danger,he seemed very dejected. Last year my friend and his girlfriend gave up eating meat because of the co2 and methane cows and farm animals produced.
Imagine years of sacrifice,time and money spent on cause you thought noble, only to find out it’s all just another government cash/power grab. I almost feel sorry for some of these folks whose intentions were pure…….almost 😉

Just an engineer
Reply to  Shawn from High River
October 1, 2014 2:08 pm

Yep, it enough to make a believers head explode!

Mike Smith
October 1, 2014 9:08 am

Don’t you sometimes wish the temps would do something? Tracking the pause is kinda like watching paint dry, but worse.

October 1, 2014 9:11 am

All children up to 17 years don’t know what global warming is. It’s a rare and exciting event. We could play with virtual warming. 🙂
Global warming in the UK can now do the following
• Vote in local and general elections
• Stand for election as an MP, local councillor or mayor
• Serve on a jury
• Be tried in a magistrate’s court, and go to prison if found guilty of a criminal offence
• Make a will
• Pawn stuff in a pawn shop
• Get married without parental permission
• Buy cigarettes, rolling tobacco and cigarette papers
• Buy alcoholic drinks in a pub or a bar
• Buy fireworks
• View, rent or buy an 18-rated film
• Open a bank account
[Rather, the “Pause” in Global Warming in the UK can now do the following. Global Warming in the UK is 350 years old! .mod]

Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 10:12 am

The Mindset List is assembled each year by Ron Nief and Tom McBride at Beloit College. It was initially created as a reminder to faculty to be wary of dated references and quickly became a catalog of the rapidly changing perception of each new generation as they make an important transition.
Here is a link to the current list for students entering college this year and who will graduate in 2018:
Amazingly enough, it does not mention that there has been no global warming within the lifetime of the students even though they have constantly been bombarded with the “fact” of global warming.

Reply to  Taphonomic
October 1, 2014 3:09 pm

I commented on it. I’m sure others did / will as well. That list is usually quite entertaining.

Reply to  Jimbo
October 1, 2014 7:24 pm

Young People Today don’t know what Global Warming is. When I were a lad …
There’s a Four Yorkshire men sketch in there somewhere.

October 1, 2014 9:16 am

For the time being, most are betting that it will get real hot real fast when the hiatus ends. –Ronald Bailey, Reason Online, 9 September 2014

What, exactly are they betting? “Betting” implies risking a stake, having skin in the game. These clowns are not betting anything.
That is the fundamental problem with all of this global warming bullshit. There is a huge upside from telling scary stories – it gets you lots of grants and cushy public sector “research” jobs. It gets you personal fame and no small fortune at a time when others have been struggling with a recession. It gets you political power and smug authority to call for the imprisonment and execution(!) of your rivals.
There is no downside. If you’re wrong about the scary stories you tell, you just keep piling up other people’s money until the gravy train is finally run off its tracks, but that will take decades. By then you will have accumulated quite a lot of ill gotten gains.
Betting? Ha. If those asshats were actually betting – their own money or their own lives instead of other people’s – then they would be a damn sight more circumspect about the stories they tell.

Reply to  JJ
October 1, 2014 9:25 am

They are betting their jobs…(there may be a sudden rush on tar, feathers, pitchforks and torches, so lay in a supply now).

Clint Culver
Reply to  mjc
October 1, 2014 10:49 pm

Spot on!

Reply to  JJ
October 1, 2014 9:40 am

Sounds like you are describing a ‘leech’

Reply to  JJ
October 1, 2014 9:27 pm

…real hot…”
How hot is “real hot”.
…real fast…”
When is real fast? I’d like to know the year.
Vague. Empty. Sophistry.
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
G.K. Chesterton

Allan MacRae
October 1, 2014 9:27 am

We wrote in 2002 the following statements that have proved true to date:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
[PEGG debate, reprinted at their request by several professional journals, the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae]

Tim Obrien
October 1, 2014 9:27 am

Dont worry soon the cry will be that Man is somehow keeping the climate from changing enough! It will be a catastrophe!!

Reply to  Tim Obrien
October 1, 2014 9:34 am


Pat Boyle
October 1, 2014 9:33 am

How did the Roman Warming period end? We know it ended and we know the Middles Ages Warming Period also ended. Do we think that after years of warm weather it suddenly became cooler – in one year? In one day?
My guess is that it took a few years for the new direction to get established. Maybe when the earth’s average temperature reversed directions there was a period where the temperature stayed the same for a few years. Say 18 years.

Reply to  Pat Boyle
October 1, 2014 3:22 pm

Slack tide-like?

October 1, 2014 9:39 am

This is only going to worsen for AGW enthusiast going forward as the temperature trend actually starts a decline later this decade.
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
© 2014 Southwest Weather, Inc

Walt Allensworth
October 1, 2014 9:52 am

About the only thing that could save the climagheddonist now would be a spectacularly large El-Nino.
If that happens, some of them just might keep their jobs until it’s time to retire.
It’s no wonder that they are so worried that the world is not warming.

October 1, 2014 10:10 am

It seems to me that it’s widely accepted that CO2 lags temperature by about 400 years, so unfortunately that means none of here today will see the day CO2 begins to fall, oh about 382 years or so.

October 1, 2014 10:16 am

Probably wishing they could have switched the name from global warming to climate change sooner.
Of course climate change is the stupidest name in the world to give global warming, Climate has continually changed and no one is offering a theory of a climate continuing unchanged until the universe collapses. Debating “Climate Change” then becomes like debating whether people die.

October 1, 2014 10:33 am

The odds that the computer models are unreliable estimators of the global temperature rise exponentially with each year that the hiatus continues. No wonder so many climatologists are scrambling to explain it.

October 1, 2014 10:50 am

Don’t see this anywhere—-The Arctic is shrinking [due to Global Warming, of course] and the walrus are suffering…and it’s YOUR FAULT…
I didn’t know Fox News was into AGW – thought they knew bettter.

October 1, 2014 12:08 pm

The invariability of climate? I doubt the yahoos would like that title.

Louis Hooffstetter
October 1, 2014 12:15 pm

Santer, et al., 2011:
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
Let’s all take a moment to thank Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Susan Soloman Tom Karl, and others for confirming what many of here have long suspected: Humans are having an immesureable effect on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
“Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale”
B. D. Santer, C. Mears, C. Doutriaux, P. Caldwell, P. J. Gleckler, T. M. L. Wigley, S. Solomon, N. P. Gillett, D. Ivanova, T. R. Karl, J. R. Lanzante, G. A. Meehl, P. A. Stott, K. E. Taylor, P. W. Thorne, M. F. Wehner and F. J. Wentz.

Phineas Fahrquar
October 1, 2014 12:46 pm

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
And yet climate alarmists continue insist we do something NOW to fight a problem, global warming, that hasn’t been in evidence for nearly 20 years. That’s because “climate change” isn’t science for them; it’s a religious faith, in which Man is to be punished for his sins against the Earth. Empirical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

October 1, 2014 3:42 pm

October 1, 2014 4:47 pm

18 years of no statistically significant change in RSS LTTA.
Hey, Earth . . . did you just roll the dice for 18 years? You did, didn’t you?

October 1, 2014 9:25 pm

When I mention the pause to climate alatmists some point to the big spike in 98 and claim that skews the trend. Can someone of a statistical persuasion tell me what happens to the trend if you exclude that outlier?

Daryl M
Reply to  Alastair
October 1, 2014 11:02 pm

You can’t exclude one outlier. The el nino of 1998 happened. It can’t unhappen, nor can any other event that occurred in the past.

Richard M
Reply to  Alastair
October 2, 2014 2:09 pm

The trend from 2000 is exactly the same as it is from late 1996 and does not include 1998. Show that to the alarmists next time. It shows that 1998 has no affect on the trend. This is because cool years before and after 1998 cancel it out from a trend perspective.

October 2, 2014 3:21 am

Despite a wet August, we’ve enjoyed a wonderfully mild, dry and sunny September here in the UK – and it looks set to continue into October. Very similar pattern to mid-September 2013’s weather (starting 17th); gentle breeze, windows and doors open – no turbines whirring, loads of imported electricity. Frankly, it’s all been rather lovely. Our skeptic WUWT community elsewhere in the world haven’t been so lucky (especially the late summer cold experienced in North America). I expect the MSN headlines to now read “UK first nation blamed for ending pause” or “global climate change disruptive warming resurected – UK to blame”.

October 2, 2014 7:56 am

Who’s hacked the CET? It seems they can’t hide the decline any more!

October 2, 2014 8:22 am

Link in article reads ” CBS News, 30 September 2014″ but takes me to cnsnews.com 30 September 2014

October 2, 2014 9:04 am

The “warmunists” have a goal: They want to strip power from large corporations with regulations and higher taxes and increase the power of the central government.
A tax on corporate energy use or Co2 emissions is their obvious goal.
Since there is no visible climate crisis now (never let a crisis go to waste), and the hole in the ozone layer / acid rain etc. didn’t seem to scare people enough, they’ve invented a new crisis coming an unspecified number of years in the future.
So if enough people believe a crisis is coming in the future, why can’t they believe 18 years with no warming is just a short-term “correction” during a long term trend (like a correction in a stock bull market)?
People so gullible that they believe the future can be predicted (future climate or anything else), then they are gullible enough to believe 18 years without warming doesn’t mean anything.
As usual, every environmental “crisis” requires everyone else to do as they say to “save the Earth” (that part never changes).
This invisible crisis was called “global warming” until the leftist computer gamers with advanced science degrees (falsely described as “scientists” using computer models) realized the warming had stopped for quite a few years.
So they created a new term: “Climate Change” … which really makes no sense, since Earth’s climate has always been changing … for 4.5 billion years so far.
Use the old term “global warming” to a leftist, and you will immediately be corrected to “climate change”.
Tell a leftist Earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years, and you will be told this time is different.
The only thing I’ve found to silence leftists here in Michigan (USA), for a moment (after I use the term “global warming”, and am “corrected” to say “climate change”), is to remind the person Michigan used to be under one or two miles of ice, so our climate must have been warming long before manmade CO2 began to increase.
That actually makes leftists think for a moment
(and you know how rare that is!)

October 2, 2014 9:05 am

I posted once before in this thread but may not have made myself adequately clear for my post elicited no response. To rephrase it for clarity my message was that selling global warming short, as suggested by one blogger, would be inadvisable in view of the fact that the variable called the “global warming” takes on a multiplicity of numerical values at a specified point in time negating non-contradiction. Non-contradiction is among the classical laws of thought.
Non-contradiction is an example of a proposition. The negation of this proposition, formed by application to it of the operator NOT, is a proposition that can be called “contradiction.” When incorporated into the argument that is made by a model contradiction has nasty properties. One is to create the appearance that this model conveys information to a decision maker when it conveys no such information. In selling global warming short one would be operating without information that this move would be a money maker while thinking one had this information.

October 2, 2014 10:41 am

The pause can also hold a driver’s license in most countries.

October 2, 2014 2:36 pm

It was only a matter of time but for a discussion against an AGW believer, a poor one. They know the upper atmosphere is cooling. It’s the proof land and sea are not warming that matters most.
CO2 and O3 cool the outer atmosphere where they radiate.
This is not borne out over the other CO2 planets. Water vapour *has* to be in this. If not, then it really is O3 that causes all of GW.
Also CO2 radiates in the Antarctic at sea level.

October 6, 2014 1:09 am

Amazing how when people predict disaster and it doesn’t come to pass they are disheartened and sad – even lashing out in anger!
That’s like warning your daughter that if she walks home late at night she might get raped by a maniac, and then being depressed when she makes it home safe and without incident.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights