Global Temperature Update: Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months – Since Sept. 1996

Global Temperature Update

Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley – Special to Climate Depot

According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.


Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to May 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 9 months.

The hiatus period of 17 years 9 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend. But the length of the pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº century–1. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter of a century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to juar 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).


Figure 2. Medium-term global temperature projections from IPCC (1990), January 1990 to April 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) as the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.


Figure 3. Predicted temperature change since 2005 at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue).

Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no statistically-significant global warming for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.

New attempts to explain away the severe and growing discrepancy between prediction and reality emerge almost every day. Far too few of the scientists behind the climate scare have yet been willing to admit the obvious explanation – that the models have been programmed to predict far more warming than is now likely.

The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event has begun. The usual suspects have said it will be a record-breaker, but, as yet, there is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.

El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña.

The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015.

Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.


Key facts about global temperature


  • The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 213 months from September 1996 to May 2014. That is more than half the entire 425-month satellite record.


  • The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.


  • The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.


  • The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.


  • Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.


  • The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.


  • In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction.


  • The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.


  • In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to only 1.7 Cº per century. Even that is exaggerated.


  • Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its centennial warming prediction of 4.7 Cº warming to 2100 on business as usual.


  • The IPCC’s prediction of 4.7 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.


  • The IPCC’s 4.7 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.


  • Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the mean of 5 datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.


  • Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.


Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 213 months September 1996 to May 2014 – more than half the 425-months satellite record.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

Related Links: 

Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least nine  ten separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific Trade Winds 9)  ’Stadium Waves’ 10) ‘Coincidence’



35 Responses

  1. The horizontal blue line on the first chart is drawn through the +0.23 degrees line. So that would mean this chart shows persistent WARMING, on average, no? Yet the caption on the chart reads “Trend -0.00 C”. This seems like a huge mistake. Please explain.

      1. I’m sick of the alarmism, pushed by the usual political opportunists, especially Obama. It’s sickening that the agenda driven AGW believers gets away with censorship and persecution . Soon to be 18 YEARS with no statistical warming and still you have knuckleheads declaring an invisible warming trend. Read “Slaying the Skydragon” and educate yourselves. There’s wealth of research that falsify the false claims and helps individuals understand the deception bring pushed upon us.

          1. No it is not OUR fault. It being climate change AKA the pseudo science of global warming belief The chart is not proof that co2 drives climate or is a factor in driving climate, again AKA global warming, If anything co2 is a follower and passive observer at best. The chart only goes back 650000 years. How old did you say the earth is. From the construction of the NASA chart it appears to replace Manns debunked hockey stick as “proof” when in fact it is leaving out the vast majority of earth history, It is not proof it’s just a chart.

              1. Bill NYE is Al Gores apprentice. Hired to preach the gospel of AGW and sound the alarm. He’s a celebrity, nothing more, a figure head. Oh BTW the science 101 video is bogus, junk science. Its a shameless fake passing of as science and has been totally debunked. One more thing the comment section on the 101 video has been turned off, I wonder why?

              2. I would be plain embarrassed to post such a poor excuse for science. I feel sad for those who see it and are fooled by the deception.

                “Slaying the Sky Dragon” by Dr. Tim Ball
                this book exposes the deception of the myth and destroys the AGW theory from the bottom up. That is the false assumptions of the “settled science” are exposed for the fiction they are.

                1. You cannot debunk global warming pseudo-science with gobbledegook science
                  Customer rating 1.0/5.0
                  January 13, 2012 By Martin A
                  64 out of 87 found this helpful


                  This is a book that purports to discredit the hypothesis of man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels. However, it contains much of what I would term “crackpot science” and so the book cannot be taken seriously. Worse than that, it is seriously misleading if used as a source of scientific information. Finally, it enables CAGW believers to say “Deniers are talking nonsense as usual”.

                  My own position

                  My review of “Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” is not complimentary so, for the avoidance of doubt, let me make my own position clear:

                  – I think that belief in catastrophic man-made climate change is akin to a religion which has many passionate believers, whose belief is based on faith rather than evidence.

                  – I think that the global warming mass delusion has resulted in immense harm in numerous ways.

                  – The evidence for global warming was based on analysis of temperature data with numerous problems of reliability but in any case the data has failed to show continued global warming for the past ten years or so.

                  – The evidence for CO2 being a threat is non-existent. The only “evidence” is computer models, which have been programmed by people with a strong desire to produce evidence for a strong relation between CO2 and global temperatures. But, as someone said, a computer model is an illustration of a hypothesis, it is not evidence.

                  I am sure that, at some time in the future, perhaps not in my lifetime, the whole thing will be recognized as the greatest mass-delusion of all time. However, there are now so many people and organizations who benefit from it, not to forget a generation of indoctrinated school children, that I don’t think this will happen soon.

                  Let me make clear my understanding of thermal radiation, because the explanations in the book differ very greatly from radiation physics as taught in normal texts. Here is how it is normally understood:

                  – A black body absorbs all radiation that impinges on it, irrespective of the temperature of the black body or the wavelength of the radiation. Equivalently, every photon impacting a black body is absorbed by it, irrespective of the energy of the photon or the temperature of the body that emitted the photon. The temperature of the black body absorbing the photon is irrelevant to anything – it absorbs all photons whatever its temperature.

                  – A spherical black body emits radiation whose total power is determined solely by its surface area and its absolute temperature, the radiated power being proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. The spectrum of its radiation is described by the Planck’s law formula.

                  The book has numerous explanations of radiation that disagree totally with what I have written above.


                  Nine chapters, covering about 50 pages, are by Alan Siddons generally dealing with radiation, greenhouse effect and claiming to expose misconceptions of physics that are to be found in climate science.

                  There are two chapters by Tim Ball “Analysis of Climate Alarmism” parts one and two which reviews how climate research became politicized and how the IPCC came into existence as an organization whose mission was to convince governments that they needed to introduce policies based on the danger of man-made global warming. I found these chapters interesting and informative.

                  There are ten more chapters, by six other authors, including two by Claes Johnson, entitled “Climate Thermodynamics” and “Computational Black Body Radiation”.

                  The book contains numerous misconceptions of physics. To correct or explain all of them would need a document almost as long as the book itself. I will focus on two examples from two chapters. However note that misconceptions abound throughout the book – it is not simply a matter of just one or two errors here and there.

                  “Examining Greenhouse Theory” by Alan Siddons.

                  This chapter starts with a diagram from a Washington University course. Many readers of this review will be familiar with similar diagrams showing:
                  – 342 W/m^2 arriving as solar radiation
                  – 102.6 W/m^2 being reflected to space immediately
                  – 239.4 W/m^2 continuing downwards and then warming the earth (taken to be 240 W/m^2 in the text)

                  The earth then re-radiates 240 W/m^2, as it is in thermal equilibrium.

                  It is assumed that the 240 W/m^2 radiation leaving the earth is absorbed by an atmospheric layer and re-radiated 50% upward and 50% downward, so that 120 W/m^2 goes to space and 120 W/m^2 goes back to earth, where it is absorbed and the 120 W/m^2 is then re-radiated.

                  I see no problem with this. Of the 120 W/m^2 re-radiated by the earth, 60 W/m^2 returns again, then 30 W/m^2, and so on. So we have going spaceward 120 + 60 + 30 +… = 240 W/m^2. This is the same as originally arrived at the surface, so things are in equilibrium, with as much power being radiated spaceward as originally arrived at the surface directly from the sun.

                  Nothing wrong with that that I can see. The earth’s temperature is being maintained but it is not receiving any additional heat from anywhere – including the cooler greenhouse gases above its surface so there is no need to argue that cold objects do not heat hotter objects.

                  Yet Alan Siddons immediately says “If people are gullible enough to believe such a scenario, and apparently millions do, they deserve what’s coming down the road at them.”

                  Then he says “Substitute an infrared filter for that layer of ‘greenhouse gases.’ Direct a radiant heater at an infrared filter, then. (sic) According to greenhouse physics you will now have the equivalent of two radiant heaters. (…) Two heaters for the price of one. But no, that’s not all. Remember that the radiant heater will be heated by its own re-directed energy (…) It’s not only a perpetual motion machine – it accelerates to boot!”

                  This is a fallacious argument. The earth is not equivalent to a radiant heater generating its own heat and radiating it. The greenhouse gasses are not equivalent to an infrared filter.

                  Other chapters by Alan Siddons contain many misconceptions. Most can be translated as equivalent to a belief that photons emitted by cool body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body.

                  “Computational Blackbody Radiation” by Claes Johnson
                  At a quick glance, this chapter seems to be a detailed discussion of radiation physics from a mathematical viewpoint, with plenty of mathematics – no shortage of integral signs and formulas. But looked at in any detail, it is simply nonsense – scientific sounding nonsense but still nonsense.

                  In section 1.1 he says “The purpose of this note is to show that particle statistics can be replaced by deterministic finite precision computational wave mechanics. We thus seek to open a door to restoring rational physics including climate physics, without any contradictory wave-particle duality”.

                  Immediately my alarm bells started sounding. Anyone who announces that he will replace the physics of the twentieth century with a new alternative immediately runs the risk of being thought to harbor delusions of grandeur. “…contradictory wave-particle duality.” Sounds impressive but does it mean anything? I don’t think so.

                  He says “A blackbody thus can be seen as a system of resonators with different eigen-frequencies which are excited by incoming radiation and then emit radiation. An ideal blackbody absorbs all incoming radiation and re-emits all absorbed radiation below cut-off”

                  This is simply rubbish. See my note above as to what a black body actually does.

                  He says

                  “As a transformer of radiation a blackbody thus acts in a very simple way: it absorbs all radiation, emits absorbed frequencies below cutoff, and uses absorbed frequencies above cut-off to increase its temperature. A blackbody thus acts as a semi-conductor transmitting only frequencies below cut-off, and grinding coherent frequencies above cut-off into heat in the form of incoherent high-frequency noise.”

                  “We here distinguish between coherent organized electromagnetic waves of different frequencies in the form of radiation or light, and incoherent high-frequency vibrations or noise, perceived as heat.”

                  This all sounds impressive but it is simply gibberish. It is nonsense. A black body acts as a semi-conductor? Does he know what a semi-conductor is?

                  A blackbody grinds coherent frequencies above cut-off into heat? This is meaningless waffle. As I said, see above for my note of what a black body actually does.


                  I’ve taken just two snippets from two chapters. It’s too bad that the book is filled with scientific nonsense like this, as there is plenty of global warming pseudo-science that needs to be debunked.

                  But you cannot debunk global warming pseudo-science with gobbledegook science. Worse, it enables The Faithful to say “There you are, you see? Deniers talk nonsense”.

                  1. Point well taken, and thank you for clarifying your true position. I’ll let Siddon and Claes Johnson defend their critisism themselves.

                    In the illustrations concerning Alan Siddon he was using an illustration I didn’t read it to mean he believes the atmosphere functions such. The illustration shows the radiative greenhouse theory if taken to its conclusion with co2 as the catalyst for runaway warming. Of course the science behind the illustration is preposterous and I think that’s the point.

                    Claes Johnson had a different issue. As a theoretical applied mathematician he presents a radically different view and speaks in a language totally alien to physics. He really stuck his neck out there and has been attacked by all three sides. I wish the fiction known as climate science was attacked as fervently.


                  2. “Nothing wrong with that that I can see. The earth’s temperature is being maintained but it is not receiving any additional heat from anywhere – including the cooler greenhouse gases above its surface so there is no need to argue that cold objects do not heat hotter objects.”
                    You know this and I agree but the book is written for non scientists to examine the underlying principles being pushed by the warmers. Many think that Co2 is a heat source in and of itself.

                  3. “This is a book that purports to discredit the hypothesis of man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels. However, it contains much of what I would term “crackpot science” and so the book cannot be taken seriously. Worse than that, it is seriously misleading if used as a source of scientific information. Finally, it enables CAGW believers to say “Deniers are talking nonsense as usual”.

                    I think its a good introduction to the science behind the deception and gets average people up to speed on the flaws inherent in the underlying “theory” itself.

                    Now you may not agree with that but at least you apparently took the time to read it. Its amazing that we share almost identical views on what climate science has become. I have focussed on the IPCC UN conspiracy not knit picking sections of a book. I don’t think the Skydragon is meant to replace the dogma of AGW but to wound and challenge the belief system and it does. Nor is it my only source of information, far from it.

                    In my debates mostly on linkedin after the emails exposed the plot to systematically shut down decent my first priority was to discover the truth, for myself. So i joined the debate. My instincts told me that something was wrong with the AGW theory itself but i had no knowledge base to challenge the warmers. I was challenged early on by some warmers who were so smug and sure of the “science” stating that I had no business challenging the opinions of the overwhelming consensus. The said to go back and read and that it would take 6 month to be able to understand the arguments and be worthy of their time. (quite condescending) Well little did they know I took them up on their challenge. When I came back (didn’t take 6 months) I was ready armed with facts and science, real science. And that’s been my approach. So far so good.

                    BTW you going to pull the science guy fake science down or at least admit its a fake experiment? What was your point in posting it?

              1. So you want to move on I see. You do not want to address the Fact that Bill Nye is a fraud and a charlatan. The 101 experiment was a fake, But I see that doesn’t bother you at all. You want me to waste my time listening to Carl Sagan now?

                No I won’t let you get out of it that easily and challenge you to admit that the Science Guy tried to pass a fake experiment off as real science. I know that you won’t look into the science because it exposes the lie you’re preaching.

                So Before I go on to debunk your next propaganda videos deal with this fake experiment. What good is an experiment if it cannot be reproduced or did Al and Bill have some special co2? Ha Ha Ha Ha

                    1. Where’s the link? did they use the same Oscar Ice figures? was the Ice the same density? Just wondering.

                  1. Yes posting websites is not a defense of a dead theory. Its called propaganda, not science. The radiative greenhouse gas theory has been falsified for years.

                    Rather than posting links why don’t you engage in a meaningful dialog and stay on one subject.? Bill Nye unwittingly exposes the hoax of the entire scam when it comes to AGW. Don’t you want to first define it, and then defend it. Why do you feel the need to skip around?

                    1. What a puppet parrot clown. I wish he could regurgitate with a little more passion. How I miss Al Gore.Where was the link to the proof that Bill Nye’s experiment was valid?

                    2. propaganda. The glasses do not mean he’s intelligent, just that he needs them to read his SCRIPT.

                    3. The satellites tell us there is no warming…. only the fudged data from NASA/NOAA tell us things are warming.

                  2. Search Results

                    Search Articles and Arguments for myth buster’s video

                    Search Comments

                    There are no skeptic arguments matching the search myth buster’s video.

                    There are no blog posts matching the search myth buster’s video.

                  3. Skeptical Science is a great source. I once pointed out that they were simultaneously denying the pause existed while offering multiple explanations as to why it was happening and my post was deleted and my account was suspended. All I did was point out a fact. Their explanation was that my post received complaints. It was up a grand total of 15 minutes, how many complaints could it have received? The truth is that it demonstrated their hypocrisy and/or cluelessness. One blog repeatedly mentioned the idiocy of people who believed in the pause. Yet other blogs had those “idiots” posting explanations of why it was happening! Would you post a blog written by a known “idiot” about something you say is not happening? Can you see the conflict here? On the same pages there were the most vicious, profanity laced attacks made by warmists that were allowed to remain on the site. Vile attacks against people who tell the truth are allowed but coherent, factual statements that question their position are deleted and the person making them is ostracized. You go right on linking to them, tells me how well informed you truly are.
                    Skeptical science promotes ignorance. If ignorance is indeed bliss, Skeptical Science readers must be the happiest people on earth.

              2. “Only if it has carbon monoxide which still combusts. The CO2 itselfhas absolutely no property of inordinate retention or absorption of
                infrared radiation as all scientific investigations reveal and can be
                shown by actual science to have absolutely no effect upon the
                temperature of air.

                However, science is not the basis of the psychological disease of the
                global warming kooks. It is their freaky little desire to control
                other peoples lives, and to satiate this obsession, they are willing
                to ignore, pervert, distort and falsify anything related to science.”
                Peter Franks
                March 10, 2011

                And Yes he studies the Oceans but by studying the turbulence and currents of this subsystem he has gained an appreciation for real science. I would say he knows the difference. The shame is you use a gullible kid. I would stack up Professor Franks judgement and critique above the kid, wouldn’t you? This experiment mocks science and the scientific method by making assumptions and not sharing the data with the rest of the scientific community.

                You can find his remarks in context here: and his protagonist “desertphile” copies and pasts a bunch of unrelated links. I’ve seen this before The nut goes on to claim he’s resurrecting a dead theory. Hardly.

              3. This “test” does not mimic the greenhouse effect. These little containers in no way simulate the ecosystem of the entire planet. All they have really proven here is that CO2 has a smaller specific heat than that of air, which it does. But the increase of CO2 from 360 to 400 ppm (0.036% to 0.04%) is not going to affect the atmosphere that significantly. Did they ensure that the heat input to both containers is EXACTLY the same? One has to ask these questions.

    1. Over the last 18 years the average temperature has been 0.23 degrees above the average temperature over the entire record. During the 18 years, the average anomaly has a trend of zero (i.e. temperature has not changed). The r-square=0 means the trendline has zero explanatory power (because there is NO trend).

  2. Last weekend my Liberal girlfriend shoved a NOA report under my ignorant/conservative nose that concluded that through September or October 2014 this is the WARMEST year in recorded history.
    So my question is why is there not a scientifically respected effort to reconcile, explain or condemn these very divergent view points?
    My personal and uneducated “guess” at an explanation for this divergence is that NOA uses ground based Thermometers and then adjusts all the recordings upwards based upon physical changes to the area around the fixed thermometers. So if that assumption is correct why in the heck is NOA not publicly taken to the woodshed for a beating if this measurement is in fact more accurate.

Leave a Reply