18 years – 10 months! The Global Warming ‘Pause’ refuses to go away, despite greatly exaggerated rumors of its death

Special to Climate Depot

Via: https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/the-pause-update-march-2016-preliminary/

The Pause Update: March 2016 (Preliminary)

Well my last post certainly stirred up some Global Warming Enthusiasts who found it difficult to get their heads around the continued existence of The Pause.  What will they make of this month’s update?  The Pause refuses to go away, despite greatly exaggerated rumours of its death.

Dr Roy Spencer has just released UAH v6.0 data for March.  This is a preliminary post with graphs only for the Globe, the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere, and the Tropics.  Other regions will be updated in a few days’ time when the full data for March are released.  (These preliminary figures may change slightly as well.)

These graphs show the furthest back one can go to show a zero or negative trend (less than +0.1C/ 100 years) in lower tropospheric temperatures.    I calculate 12 month running means to remove the small possibility of seasonal autocorrelation in the monthly anomalies.  Note: The satellite record commences in December 1978- now 37 years and 4 months long- 448 months.  12 month running means commence in November 1979.  The graphs below start in December 1978, so the vertical gridlines denote Decembers.  The final plotted points are March 2016.

Except for the Tropics, where The Pause has reduced by three months, in other regions it has remained at the same length.



Mar 16 globe

Sorry, GWEs, The Pause is still an embarrassing reality!  For how much longer we don’t know.

And, for the special benefit of those who think that I am deliberately fudging data by using 12 month running means, here is the plot of monthly anomalies, which shows that The Pause is over in monthly anomalies by my rather strict criterion:

global monthly 2016 mar

I will continue posting these figures showing these scarey trends from monthly anomalies.  The Pause will return sooner with monthly anomalies than 12 month means of course.  Meanwhile, shudder at the thought of 18 years and 4 months with a frightening trend of +0.15C +/-0.1C per 100 years.

Northern Hemisphere:

Mar 16 NH

The Northern Hemisphere Pause refuses to go quietly and remains at nearly half the record.  It may well disappear in the next month or two.

Southern Hemisphere:

Mar 16 SH

For well over half the record the Southern Hemisphere has zero trend.


Mar 16 Tropics

The Pause has shortened by three months, but is still well over half the record long.



89 Responses

  1. In the linear regressions above, it would be highly informative to put in some measures of dispersion for the slope and intercept. Ideally a confidence interval, or at least a standard error of the mean. My wild guess is that in at least one case, the confidence intervals spans zero for the slope. It drives me to despair when data gets reported like: “The average world temperature was 0.5 degrees C warmer, with no idea how good, or bad, the estimate might be.

  2. In a few months the El Nina will begin, and the global warming pause will extend to 20 years.

    Counter intuitively, the alarmists will be very unhappy about 20 years of no global warming. You’d think they’d be happy about 20 years of no warming, you’d think they’d be dancing in the streets in celebration… But no.

    Instead they angrily deny the Pause.

    The alarmists are the science deniers now. I love it.

    1. “Now” ? It’s been obvious for a very long time that the science was FAR from settled. They’ve dug themselves such a deep hole now that they’ll have to choose to go down the ship, all flags flying.

    2. The problem you are having is that “science” doesn’t mean what you think it means, anymore. We live in a time when you can commission a study to show virtually anything you wish to show. Some “scientist” will devise a methodology that will accomplish the desired goal. That used to be the work of propagandists. Now the scientific community fulfills that role. “Hide the decline” should be an abhorrent thought to any real scientist. Sadly, not many of those are left.

      1. You are so right.

        I work in science, science is my life, and when i talk to my PhD science bosses they are appalled by what they see. They say that blaming climate change for everything is lazy science.

        For example, years ago biologists would be out in the field sampling everything from tree bark to insects, and having them assayed for industrial chemicals to show how the food chain has been disrupted which results in insect infestations. Today biologists simply write a paper that shows insect infestations are caused by anthropogenic climate change. They don’t even need to do field work anymore. That’s lazy science.

        My beloved science has been commandeered. It breaks my heart.

        1. “my .room mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

          two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month .,3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!160➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!160………

        2. I work in science, science is my life

          What makes you think that you don’t need credentials in a field of science to meaningful challenge those findings?

    3. According to the Bible, god made man in his image, however, when I look in the mirror I see a reflection of a hominid, surely if I was made in his image, wouldn’t I be invisible?

      Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:

      BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

      CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4v-gl.dat

      NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/6/1880-2014

      UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

      NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

      and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer.

      Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 1985 to present for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.

      1. I did as you suggested but the plots created did not result in slopes upward to the right. The slopes either leveled off or trended downward to the left and seemed to indicate cooling. This was the case in every one of the exercises you suggested. Am I doing something wrong?

        1. Doing something wrong? No, not at all! You’re in denial, so you will reject facts when it contradicts your belief. You will not find warming, or else you would not be in denial! Thanks for your honesty!

          Maybe you should write up your findings, get it peer reviewed, then published in scientific jornal. You are basically claiming that the smartest people in the world are all wrong. But you, an anonymous Disqus user, are right – but you refuse to show your work.

          Can you send me your url that shows your published scientific journal that shows your hiatus or cooling (you are yet to decide on that, but of course, in your denial reality it can be bd both at the same time, yeah) ?
          We both know you will not.

          Even your own camp, UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer, shows warming.
          You’re even in denial of that, your own camp. The denial is strong, Luke….

          We both know that you will not show your work, we both know you will not try to get it peer reviewed or published.
          Because this is not about the science. You and I both know that you can’t change the science. You have no say in scientific facts, you’re not qualified. This is not about the science at all.

          This is about your greed. This is about your fear of the truth. You don’t fear the tax. You fear the economic and political implications on your greedy lifestyle. You think that we can get unlimited growth from limited resources. And any regulation to control the limited resources should be avoided at all cost.

          This is also about your deep seated need to believe in conspiracy theories, it’s not based on evidence. There is well known phenomenon called crank magnetism; cranks are attached to cranky ideas, just like magnets. Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

          Tell me about your greed. Why do you fear anthropogenic climate change ?

          We both know that you will not answer any of my questions. Do your usual; run or vomit your insults.

            1. Thanks for underscoring my point that you are in denial.

              Remember, religion (anthropogenic climate change denial) should be a personal thing, so keep your pseudo-thumping to yourself. Admitting to denial to defend your greed seems very odd though.

              And your “cooling and hiatus earth” are crank theory claptrap.

                1. Wow, your inference levels are high…too high to sustain life…you are a miracle.

                  You, the climate change denier pontificates free-market ideologues such as Lessez-Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

                  I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate your denial as you would like. One should have been sufficient, but you’re obviously a very slow learner.

                  1. The planet chills and warmists writhe in desperation. Your writhing is especially desperate – and amusing.
                    And it’s laissez-faire, knobhead.

                    1. Sadly, your insults do not work on me.
                      Ok,you already admitted to being attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

                      Now, you admitted to the inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change.

                      I am stupid. One of the dumbest people in my class. I have always been open about that.

                      Having said that, my stupidity cannot be excuse for your lack of knowledge. It does make me feel better when idiots call me a knobhead…if you thought I was smart…I’d be in real trouble.

                      I think it was Mark Twain who almost said: It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.

                      You, opened your mouth, as it were.

                    2. Gaia chills and you claim to be Mark Twain. Bundle up, you’re in trouble.

                    3. Now you want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge, to conceal your intellectual incapacity. You just gave away your exist strategy, your plan to admit how your reasoning failed.

                      You already admitted to:
                      Climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

                      What more is there to say?

                      I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate your denial as you would like. One should have been sufficient, but you’re obviously a very slow learner.

                      Your attempts to sound erudite are clumsy and idiotic.

                    4. The denier study group ought to put you down like a faithful dog because you are no use to it and of no use to the reality.

  3. “Meanwhile, shudder at the thought of 18 years and 4 months with a frightening trend of +0.15C +/-0.1C per 100 years.”

    Do you mean 0.15 degrees per decade? Based on the raw global UAH data, the slope for 1997 to the present is about 0.13 degrees per decade.

  4. Both the UAH and RSS satellite temperature INTERPRETATIONS understate the actual warming rate. (Due to inclusion of some stratospheric “contamination” – which is cooling as per models.) Here are the temperature MEASUREMENTS for the lowest 1/2 of the atmosphere as MEASURED by old fashion, easy to calibrate thermometers.
    Surface observations:
    Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/NOAAanomalies.png
    NOAA Graphics: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
    Data source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
    Weather Balloons:
    850 mb level: http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdRATPAC850.jpg
    700 mb level: http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdRATPAC700.jpg
    500 mb level: http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdRATPAC500.jpg
    (Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC))
    Data source: Globe section at:

    1. “old fashion, easy to calibrate”? You mean the ones that are NOT calibrated, NOT uniform in how or what they measure, NOT statistically placed in any way to actually represent a global average and NOT historically consistent?

    2. “Sea” ? Does that include the newly included biased shipboard data which offsets the thousands of ARGO buoys which were specifically designed to provide accurate temperature data?

      And let’s not get into the surface temperatures, most of which have no relationship to the raw data. (Mostly within UHIs, so ESTIMATEs replace the raw data. If you use the relatively few stations which do not need to be revised, guess what the trend looks like”)

      1. Here’s the chart/data for oceanic warming as measured by Argo buoys.
        The graph above shows the Ocean Heat Content as measured by the Argo buoy system up through Dec. 2015. (Data available at
        http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html ) The slope of the
        trend line shows us how fast the oceans are warming.
        As of Dec. 2015 the warming rate is:
        = 3.38 trillion 100-watt light bulbs running 24/7.
        = 483 100-watt light bulbs running 24/7 for each of the 7,000,000,000 people on planet earth.

        1. Interesting, but so what? The real question is – does that have anything to do with human activity (presumably via co2 level)?

          There is no empirical evidence showing that co2 level has EVER had any impact on global temperature, even over geologic periods when co2 level was 2,000+ ppmv . (It’s now only 400 ppmv).

          The only correlation over geologic periods (tracking both up and down trends) shows temperature variation happening 800 years to 2800 years BEFORE very similar variation in co2 level. While that correlation does not imply causation, it certainly implies there cannot also be the opposite correlation. No empirical evidence, no correlation, the CAGW hypothesis is not even plausible.

          Then there is the LIE by alarmists that the MWP was merely regional and not all that warm. It would take only a few measurements remote from one another around the globe to imply MWP was a global phenomenon. There are 1,000+ peer reviewed studies ,representing 40+ countries and numerous organizations , which contradict the alarmist claim. And how about the Mendhall glacier in Alaska which just receded enough to show splintered tree trunks still standing at latitudes too far north for trees to grow. (There’s a similar recent exposure in the Alps. ) There are 6,000 boreholes around the globe showing the MWP trend also.

                    1. I can grasp the fact that you are a FRAUD. You are an ignorant, arrogant asswhole who thinks you understand climate dynamics when it is clear you have no clue. Let me repeat, you have no clue.

                    2. Tell me where I lied? You ARE a FRAUD. No credentials. No evidence to support AGW. You have NOTHING but being a FRAUD. That is truth…..LMAO!!!

                    3. Thanks LOLO, your weak-minded logical fallacy of fraud being weak-minded, and your blatant lie about No evidence to support AGW aside, these weak-minded lies:

                      You are an ignorant, arrogant asswhole This is a lie, you can’t show it is true.

                      who thinks you understand climate dynamics when it is clear you have no clue. You can’t show this is true either, thus lie.

                      You couldn’t show I have no understanding your way out of a wet paper bag. Your weak bluff is weak.



                    4. You are an ignorant, arrogant asswhole “This is a lie, you can’t show it is true.”

                      Hahahhahaha….your posts do that very clearly.

                      I’m not bluffing. Why? You have NOTHING but lame retorts. If, and that is a BIG if, you were as smart and credentialed as you claim, you’d at least be witty in your responses even while keeping your anonymity. But you are unable to do that. Me thinks you must reside in that wet paper bag you describe…..LMAO at the FRAUD.

                    5. You just keep proving what I say. Dano is a FRAUD. A not very bright one at that. Yet you have the temerity to claim an understanding of climate dynamics……hahaha…hahahahahahahahahahahaha

                    6. That’s not showing either. You can’t show – you lack talent and capacity to show.



                    7. “You can’t show – you lack talent and capacity to show.”

                      hahahahahahaha……is that the depth of your wittiness?

                      Dano, the poor FRAUD, who does nothing but troll climate sites. Unable to prove anything but his own ineptness. Dano the FRAUD……LMAO!!!

                    8. Still not showing, LOLO. Do you know how to show, or is showing too advanced for you?

                      Let us know, LOLO.



                    9. Yo are doing it for me, Dano the FRAUD…..LMAO!!! Too bad you made claims you can’t substantiate….The world sees you for what you are, a FRAUD.

                    10. I have shown you to be the FRAUD you are. How so? You made the claim that you have several degrees and have been published in several journals. You refuse to back that up. So who has nothing again?? LMAO at Dano the FRAUD.

                    11. More lies: You refuse to back that up.

                      You are making it up because I choose to remain anonymous. So because of this, you make a logical fallacy to claim fraud.

                      Dishonest. Smart people don’t make such simpleton mistakes for play.



                    12. Name a journal you’ve been published in. Not YOUR identity, just the journal. Do that. You choose to remain anonymous because your knowledge of climate dynamics is shaky at best.

                      You are the one being dishonest. You made the claim. Substantiate it.

                    13. Another lie: You choose to remain anonymous because your knowledge of climate dynamics is shaky at best.

                      Weak flail.



                    14. You project, Dano the FRAUD. Why do you even come here? You are not providing a sensible case for AGW. All you do is troll and you are a poor one at that. Then you wonder how someone can doubt your intelligence. Really? Your writing belies any serious intelligence. You have been unmasked as the FRAUD you must be…….LMAO!!!

                    15. Poor Dano, The FRAUD can’t think of anything witty to say……LMAO!!! Yet you’d like people to accept AGW as a given. With advocates like you, it is no wonder people aren’t believing. You are a light weight. They sure did sucker you in with all the catastrophic nonsense…..LMAO at the weak-minded Dano the FRAUD………Dano the lemming……..hahahahahahaha

                    16. hehehehehe…… Dano, the world sees you for what you are, a troll and a FRAUD.

                    17. Poor Dano the FRAUD can’t think of anything witty………LMAO!!! at Dano the lemming. Get back to us when you can think for yourself.

                1. 2 simple sentences, still no content. Perhaps you can enlighten the readers by providing empirical evidence that co2 has caused our planet to warm.

    3. Well that would be one of the most ignorant pieces of propaganda ever… if not for a bunch of other pieces of ignorant propaganda. First of all, while thermometers may be “easy to calibrate”, the ones use for this little number were not. Second, when you place said thermometers strategically, and ignore the ones that do not give the desired results, you can create virtually any picture you desire. I challenge anyone not already familiar to google “1200 KM smoothing” to see one of the many ways these people manipulate “data” to create the necessary illusion for their agenda.

  5. Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene epoch spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.

    When considering the scale of temperature changes that alarmists anticipate because of Man-made Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions in this century, it is useful to look at climate change from a longer term, century by century and even on a millennial perspective.

    However all the Northern Hemisphere Ice Core records from Greenland show:

    the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of the entire Holocene interglacial.

    each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.

    for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point “climate optimum”, had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.

    but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at ~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.

    the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacials the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.

    the beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has been transmuted into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare”.

    eventually this late 20th century temperature blip will come to be seen as just noise in the system in the longer term progress of comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.

    other published Greenland Ice Core records as well as GISP2, (NGRIP1, GRIP) corroborate this finding. They also exhibit the same pattern of a prolonged relatively stable early Holocene period followed by a subsequent much more rapid decline in the more recent past.


  6. Dano2 is a FRAUD. He claims several degrees and having been published in several journals. When asked to supply proof, he can’t. Therefore he is a FRAUD.

              1. You are a FRAUD. I am now convinced that your claims of being published are bogus. Why? You write so poorly that it would be impossible for a journal to publish your gibberish……LMAO at Dano the FRAUD!

Leave a Reply