The Great Pause Is Now At 18 Years, 3 Months

Despite all the yammering from Warmists about 2014 being the “warmest year ever!!!!!!!!”, a dubious allegation, based on estimates, and, really, even if their estimates are correct, can you tell the difference between 58.46 and 58.46? Anyhow, the satellites disagree. Anyhow, here’s Christopher Monckton of Benchley, with his monthly highlight (Warmists will surely attack him personally, because they have no way to counter the actual data, and, hey, personal attacks are what Lefties do)

Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS [1] temperature plot pushes up the period without any global warming from 18 years 2 months to 18 years 3 months.

(WT note: if you hit the link you can click the photo and see it full size)

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 3 months since October 1996.

The hiatus period of 18 years 3 months, or 219 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

Of course, Warmists will call this “cherry picking”, since they completely misunderstand, possibly on purpose, that the time period is simply working back from current time. If you said that you’ve been at a company for the last 18 years and 3 months, that would not be cherry picking. Cherry picking is using a specific time frame, such as how many Warmists use 1960-1990 to establish a baseline, even though 20 of those years were seeing a reduction in temperatures, leading to news organizations and climate scientists to wonder if the Earth was heading into an ice age.

The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though approaching 70 mutually incompatible and more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals and among proselytizing scientists, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed, and is demonstrated in a major peer-reviewed paper published this month in the Orient’s leading science journal.

It’s only an embarrassment to the honest climatologists. The rest of the cult has all sorts of excuses, talking points, and distractions.

The basic point here, and I would highly recommend reading the entire article, including the “key points” near the end, is not that there hasn’t been any warming since 1850, because there certainly was. Nor that there were spikes, such as during the time period of 1979-1996 (1997-1998 are ignored, being part of a massive El Nino). The debate is not over warming, but causation. Warmists say it is mostly/solely the fault of Mankind. Skeptics say it is mostly/solely caused by nature. The primary culprit for Warmists is CO2, what they refer to as “carbon pollution”, despite being a trace gas necessary for life on Earth, and what you are expelling from your nose and mouth every couple of seconds or so. Yet, despite rising CO2 levels, we have an 18 year and 3 month pause.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “The Great Pause Is Now At 18 Years, 3 Months”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Mr. Teach: Would you please explain why you and Mr. Monckton ignore the other datasets?

    Below is the data from the major datasets of average global surface warming (including the two satellite datasets that computer model temperature in the lower troposphere).

    GISTEMP…….. 0.08 C/decade
    NOAA……….. 0.06 C/decade
    HadCRUT…….. 0.06 C/decade
    Berkeley……. 0.08 C/decade

    UAH satellite.. 0.10 C/decade
    RSS satellite.. 0.00 C/decade

    The average for all 6 datasets is 0.07 C/decade over the past 18 years.

    For reference, the average of the GISTEMP, NOAA, HadCRUT, Berkeley shows 0.08 C/decade warming over the past century.

    The RSS shows 0.12 C/decade since 1979. The UAH shows 0.14 C/decade since 1979.

    Is it really your argument that the mythical Great Pause is based on the difference between 0.07 C/decade (last 18 years) and 0.08 C/decade (last century)?

    One of the datasets shows no warming. That dataset, RSS, is chosen by Monckton and Mr. Teach as proving that global warming stopped 18 years ago.

    Warmists will call this “cherry picking”

    because it is. Why cherrypick the only dataset that shows no warming? Why ignore the others? You don’t discuss why the others all show warming (as a scientist would)? Why ignore the ocean temperature?

    Since the satellite systems (RSS and UAH) went on line in 1979, they have shown MORE warming than any of the other non-satellite datasets! But if you and Monckton cherrypick the interval (last 18 years) and the dataset (RSS), voila, you find no warming! That’s not science, that is dishonest hucksterism.

    If you were truly skeptical you might question why the RSS dataset diverged from all other datasets 18 years ago.

    The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment

    Climate scientists are too busy to be embarrassed by the likes of you and Monckton.

  2. john says:

    Teach I live on the surface of the planet not up in the troposphere it is warming fast down here
    Skeptics/deniers first said no it wasn’t warming now you say you are not debating whether it is/isnt warming just what the cause is.
    What do you think the cause of the global warming is?
    Roy Spencer also used to say there was no global warming no he says 50% from humans.
    Models are not should not be used to predict events but to show tends
    Do you consider the Pope to be a warmist? Do you consider all branches of the US military to have now joined this “cult” ?
    Teach do you believe that CO@ does not trap infrared radiation ? That was proved 130 years ago.
    Apparently Monckton didn’t get your message that the debate on warming/not warming is over
    Teach Monckton has often been exposed as a liar. He claimed to be a lord and be allowed to sit in the House of Lords
    He wears a nobel laureate gold pin that he made himself
    He claimed to be the science advisor to Margaret thatcher (when she was warning the world about global warming in the 80s)
    And now he is a Director of a company that claims to sell something that cures multiple sclerosis
    Look at his Wiki bio.

  3. john says:

    Monckton is high, his head is in the clouds
    How are temps in the planetary boundary doing ? How about the actual temps recorded by weather balloons on THERMOMETERS?

  4. The average for all 6 datasets is 0.07 C/decade

    Which would be called “statistically insignificant”.

    Again, Jeff, we’re aren’t debating warming, but causation.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Again, Jeff, we’re (sic) aren’t debating warming, but causation.

    You’re bullshitting your loyal reader(s).

    You just posted a long piece that there has been no warming for 18 years and 3 months! And now you claim that it is warming but not because of CO2? Do you read what you write?

    If you were seriously interested in debate, you’d answer:

    Mr. Teach: Would you please explain why you and Mr. Monckton ignore the other datasets?

  6. Jeffery says:

    Which would be called “statistically insignificant”.

    What statistic are you using to determine this? What was the outcome of this test? 95% confidence, 93%, 90%?

    If you were interested in debating this, you’d answer those questions too.

    But you’re not interested in debate, you’re a bombthrower tossing your bullshit bombs into the crowd and running away.

  7. Jeffery says:

    In case you forgot:

    Mr. Teach: Would you please explain why you and Mr. Monckton ignore the other datasets?

  8. jl says:

    Would you please explain why you ignore the RSS data set? But here, as Monckton explains it: “Terrestrial temps are taken by thermometers. Those that are correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates well below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available- platinum resistance thermometers. UAH and GISS both show a huge warming bias, while RSS is closest to the measured daily temp. data. In fact, the UAH record is shortly to be revised to reduce its warm bias. RSS data also shows the 1998 El Nino clearer than the other datasets, providing an independent verification that RSS is better able to capture such fluctuations without artificially filtering them out than other datasets.”

  9. Jeffery says:


    I don’t ignore the RSS data at all since I included it in the average. I am skeptical of what it shows.

    I read what Monckton typed about RSS. He is so full of shit.

    He says: UAH and GISS both show a huge warming bias, while RSS is closest to the measured daily temp. data.

    Read that please. He asserts without evidence that other datasets show a “huge warming bias”. Of course they do, lol. They show warming, consistent with all other physical evidence, e.g., ice sheet melting, ocean temps, sea level, Artic sea ice melting, atmospheric water vapor etc. He asserts that “RSS is closest to the measured daily temp. data.” What “measured daily temp. data” is he talking about?

    Do you have any idea how “platinum resistance thermometers” work? Neither does Monckton, evidently. How do the satellites get their thermometers down to where they measure the temperature, lol? Do they drop them on long wires? Do the float in the atmosphere and send data to the satellites wirelessly, lol? Of course, the satellites do not have thermometers at all, but measure radiation wavelengths and calculate temperatures from that. Please read the RSS page on the multiple corrections and data manipulations necessary to arrive at the “brightness temperature”.

    Why would a brilliant scientist like Monckton make such a rookie mistake about satellite measurements? The most likely reason is his total lack of respect for his readers. If you were truly skeptical you’d ask why Monckton said satellites have thermometers.

    Let’s just do the one lie at a time thing, OK. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the satellites DO carry platinum resistance thermometers. I say they do not and that Monckton is a liar. Discuss.

  10. Nighthawk says:

    Oh noes. A whopping .07C temp increase per decade. We are all DOOMED!!!

    And the warmists wonder why we don’t take them seriously.

  11. Jeffery says:


    Oh noes (sic). A whopping .07C temp increase per decade. We are all DOOMED!!!

    Do you know anything about the thermometers on satellites? I didn’t think so. Only Discount Load Monckton of Bitchley knows about them. They’re top secret.

    Teach – Can you send an email to your Lord and ask him about the magic thermometers on satellites?

    0.07 C/ decade is warming over ten times faster than when we left the last glacial period.

    What physical forces are warming the Earth 10 times faster than the cyclic orbital “wobbles” that move the Earth in and out of ice ages?? Not wanting to fact that question is why your Denier elites (WUWT, Monckton) and their minions (Teach et al) want you to Deny that the Earth is warming (although they lie and say they’re just questioning the greenhouse phenomenon).

    To a selfish conservative 0.7C/century doesn’t seem like much does it? After all you’ll be dead before it’s too bad, right? So why should you worry about the future of the Earth?

    Folks: Monckton and the Deniers are lying to you on a daily basis. I don’t know their motives. Maybe it’s for money, maybe for infamy, maybe they just hate those egghead scientists that look down on them. But they are lying to you and you should feel used.

Pirate's Cove