No Global Warming For 15 Years: David Whitehouse

NEW UK Met Office global temperature data confirms that the world has not warmed in the past 15 years.

Analysis by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) of the newly released HadCRUT4 global temperature database shows that there has been no global warming in the past 15 years – a timescale that challenges current models of global warming.

The graph shows the global annual average temperature since 1997. No statistically significant trend can be discerned from the data. The only statistically acceptable conclusion to be drawn from the HadCRUT4 data is that between 1997 – 2011 it has remained constant, with a global temperature of 14.44 +/- 0.16 deg C (2 standard deviations.)

The important question is whether 15 years is a sufficient length of time from which to draw climatic conclusions that are usually considered over 30 years, as well as its implications for climate projections.

The IPCC states that anthropogenic influences on the climate dominated natural ones sometime between 1960 – 80.The recent episode of global warming that occurred after that transition began in 1980. The world has warmed by about 0.4 deg C in this time. Whilst we live in the warmest decade of the instrumental era of global temperature measurement (post-1880), and the 90s were warmer than the 80s, the world has not got any warmer in the last 15 years.

In 2001 and 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that the world would warm at a rate of 0.2 deg C per decade in the future due to greenhouse gas forcing. Since those predictions were made it has become clear that the world has not been warming at that rate. Some scientists retrospectively revised their forecasts saying that the 0.2 deg C figure is an average one. Larger or smaller rates of warming are possible as short-term variations.

Global warming simulations, some carried out by the UK Met Office, have been able to reproduce “standstills” in global warming of a decade or so while still maintaining the long-term 0.2 deg C per decade average. These decadal standstills occur about once every eight decades. However, such climate simulations have not been able to reproduce a 15-year standstill:

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate” (NOAA 2008).

We also note a comment in an email sent by Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit: “Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”

Whether the global temperature standstill of the past 15 years continues or is replaced by warming, as the IPCC predicts, only future data will tell. In the meantime the length of the standstill means that the challenge it offers for models of future climate prediction, and explanations for past warming, cannot be ignored.

Dr David Whitehouse, science editor of the GWPF, said:

“We are at the point where the temperature standstill is becoming the dominant feature of the post-1980 warming, and as such cannot be dismissed as being unimportant even when viewed over 30 years.”

“It is time that the scientific community in general and the IPCC in particular acknowledged the reality of the global temperature standstill and the very real challenge it implies for our understanding of climate change and estimates of its future effects.”

“It is a demonstration that the science is not settled, and that there are great uncertainties in our understanding of the real-world greenhouse effect when combined with anthropogenic and natural factors.”

This is a media release from the GWPF. More information with links here:

Technical note: The HadCRUT4 database has been released from 1997 – 2010. The 2011 datapoint has been estimated from the differences between HadCRUT4 and the two published versions of the previous dataset, HadCRUT3, as observed over the past decade. As the HadCRUT3 data includes 2011 it is possible to estimate HadCRUT4 as lying between the specified error bars.

84 Responses to No Global Warming For 15 Years: David Whitehouse

  1. tony thomas April 3, 2012 at 9:18 pm #

    The August 2010 “Science of Climate Change” primer put out by the Aust. Academy of Science (document funded via a $15,900 grant from Dept of Climate Change), had this to say (below). fyi:
    Has there been a global cooling trend since 1998?
    No, 1998 was an extremely warm year but
    the overall warming trend has continued over the past decade. The temperature trend in
    any given 10-year interval (such as 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1999, or 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2007) can be determined
    by a standard statistical process called
    linear regression. Since the 1970s, decadal global temperature trends have consistently demonstrated warming in almost all such 10-year intervals, although the magnitude
    of the trend varies because of natural
    climate variability (see Box 1) 62. The decadal temperature trends over recent 10-year intervals remain positive. #

  2. Robert April 4, 2012 at 12:45 am #

    If there has been a warming trend, it shows something about the past – and nothing about the future. If St. George had won every Grand Final for thirty years after 1955, we still wouldn’t be winning now – more’s the pity!

    If CAGW is based on sound physics, that’s another matter all together.

    But if CAGW were based on sound physics, its proponents wouldn’t say desperate and absurd things about Arctic death spirals, polar bears, and evacuation plans for Lake Cathie. They would not use words like “record”, “trend”, and “extreme’ without constant clarification, definition and qualification of such loose and all but meaningless terms. Lastly, they would not propose such stupendously wasteful and ineffective solutions to the predicted problems.

    In short, it looks like a beat-up, sounds like a beat-up and quacks like a beat-up. It’s a beat-up.

    What’s more, the punters have stopped listening.

  3. Tony Price April 4, 2012 at 3:45 am #

    If you tilt your head to the right, and squint like this, holding your right thumb over the last data point, there’s a clear upward trend. I’m surprised you can’t all see it as clearly as I can. However, if you tilt your head to the right, and squint like this, and walk around like that, you’ll look like Kari Norgaard, even if you’re male, as I am (or was the last time I looked). I hope the anti-denier treatment is free. I’m looking forward to crap hospital grub in an understaffed institution with bars on the windows and daily re-education sessions with a born-again warmist. Deep joy!

  4. Neville April 4, 2012 at 7:49 am #

    Whatever you want to believe the temp today and the temp rise since the LIA recovery period is not unprecented or unusual during the holocene.

    At GISP and at least one area of Sth America there was a 10c temp increase in just 10 years after the Younger Dryas. That’s 1c every year for 10 years. Makes our 0.7c rise over the last 100+ years look rather insipid. Our present temp rise occured at the end of a minor ice age, so what would you expect?

    Of course our Holocene is the coolest interglacial of the last five or over 500,000 years of ice core recorded temps.
    The earlier period called the Holocene climate optimum was much warmer with forest growth in part to the arctic coastline and much higher sea levels as well.
    Where those trees once grew there is now just tundra and ice. Sea levels on Australia’s east coast was 1.5 metres higher just 4,000 years ago and the holocene has cooled since that time.
    I do believe in NATURAL climate change and the above clearly shows some extreme examples.
    BTW hippos and other animals swam in the Rhine and Thames 130,000 years ago during the much warmer Eemian interglacial.

    And don’t forget that only 6,000 years ago the Sahara didn’t exist but was a much greener area used by man and hippos and crocs and antelope etc. Just 6,000 years ago, now that’s climate change.

    Meanwhile we worry about a 0.7c rise over the last 100+ years coming after a minor ice age. When will we ever wake up?

  5. John Sayers April 4, 2012 at 8:04 am #

    I think we’ve finally woken up Neville.

    The ABC is running a quiz and it’s over 60% dismissive of climate change.

  6. Ian George April 4, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    Tony Thomas
    I compared the 30 year period from 1891-1920 with our present period, 1981-2010, using the average mean temps of some long-term stations.

    Sydney 17.35C 18.5C (Up 1.15C)
    Melbourne 14.7C 15.9C (Up 1.2C)
    Hobart 12.45C 13.05C (Up 0.6C)
    Adelaide 16.85C 17.25C (Up 0.4C)
    Perth 17.8C 18.6C (Up 1.2C)
    Darwin 28.2C 27.8C (Down 0.4)
    Newcastle 18.0C 18.3C (Up 0.3C)

    So capital cities mainly up by an average of close to 0.7C for 100 years.

    Now some country data.
    Murrurundi 17.0C 15.5C (Down 1.5C)
    Gunnedah 13.6C 13.05C (Down 0.55C)
    Yamba 19.5C 19.6 (Up 0.1C)
    Bathurst 13.9C 13.4C (Down 0.5C)
    Moruya 15.9C 16.1C (Up 0.2C)
    Cobar 17.0C 17.2C (Up 0.2C)

    So, after averaging out 30 years of comparable data, very little increase in country areas over 100 years – but larger differences in cities (UH effect?).

    And all this data has been taken from the BOM’s own 30 year average data statistics.

  7. Robert LePage April 4, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    Even though the sample period is so too small to have any statistical significance, you are still keeping up the disinformation campaign financed by big business.
    I wonder when you will see that the creeping increase is undeniable and give up? When the money stops flowing?

  8. gavin April 4, 2012 at 8:31 am #

    Imo, the only non event here is the GWPF

  9. kuhnkat April 4, 2012 at 8:59 am #


    “…you are still keeping up the disinformation campaign financed by big business…”

    Too bad you don’t actually have any eveidence of this imaginary campaign other than the millions of dollars contributed to Environmental groups by mostly large corporations.

    That creeping increase is very obvious in the many adjustments of the official records that have crept in over the years. GISS has them very month!!! 8>)

  10. Bruce J April 4, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    Re: Post from Ian George April 4th, 2012 at 8:15 am

    I don’t believe Perth can be considered a long term station as it has been relocated from the old Observatory site near Kings Park to Mount Lawley, a suburb some 5km away in a completely different environment.

    They must have found the old site was affected by the hot air from the adjacent Parliament House!

  11. Robert April 4, 2012 at 9:34 am #

    “the sample period is so too small…”

    If you are referring to the period after 1998, then you are right. If you are referring to the period after the late 70s, then you are right. If you are referring to the 20th century, you are right.

    You are right in order to be wrong.

    In the Age of GetUp, the trick is to make meaningless statements that are technically true but mean nothing because terms are left undefined, and references are mere factoids. One relies on the emotion only, while sharpening the image with a bunch of acronyms, buzz words and references to gang-reviewed “studies”.

    Some drama in the form of dark forces never goes astray. Those smirking, cigar-chompers of Big Business are always good for that.

    In fact, the real disinformation is coming from Big Smug. Checked out the ABC lately?

  12. koalabear April 4, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    This probably explains why there will be a 30% reduction in staff at the Departmrnt of Climate Change. There is less for them to do now, as temperatures are not increasing. Hopefully the other 600 DCCEE staff can also be told they are no longer required soon. Then they can all do something useful. Maybe they can find jobs in the mines.

  13. nicholas tesdorf April 4, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    The main factors contributing to any recent alleged temperature increases are the many adjustments of the official records that have been made to GISS records every month and the build up of Urban Heat Island effects in large cities and towns. If your record cools the past and leave the present untouched it looks like the Earth is Warming. If Cities amd Towns get bigger the preponderance of the population of thermometers in them makes it look like the World is warming despite the reality of business as usual.

  14. Ian George April 4, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    True, Bruce.
    I had to run Perth Regional Office (1897-1992) and Perth Airport (1944-2012) data. There is about 8km between each and a 4m elevation so the overall effect would be minimal.
    In fact, of the capital cities, only Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart (ELLERSLIE ROAD) have consistent long-term stations. Newcastle and some of the country sites have not changed/or there is no record of them having changed.

    Totally agree. Here is a classic case involving De Bilt in Holland. The first graph is basically the raw data.

    The second is after adjustment/homogeneity.

    The original graphs with raw data have now disappeared off NASA GISS’s website. Talk about ‘airbrushing’ history.
    The BOM has done the same by changing the data from the raw source and adjusting the temps in their High Quality data sites.

  15. davidm of brizzie April 4, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

    Where’s Luke? Stayed in bed today with his hands over his ears?

  16. Tony Price April 4, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    Tony Thomas wrote:

    “….although the magnitude of the trend varies because of natural climate variability”

    The models can’t replicate that “natural variability”, which is why it’s termed that.

    If a thief emptied your bank account, the balance would obviously drop to zero, yet a statistical analysis would conclude that the change was “statistically insignificant”. You might conclude otherwise.

  17. Neville April 4, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    Meanwhile that US govt public servant Hansen tells the people of Slovenia they shouldn’t build a new power station. How does this idiot hold down his job?

    But don’t worry about China opening 52+ stations every year until at least 2020 and Vietnam another 90 stations by 2020, that doesn’t matter.

  18. el gordo April 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    The CNN Newsroom declared that tornadoes in the Dallas-Fort Worth area were brought on by climate change.

  19. Johnathan Wilkes April 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    Tony Price

    Could you run that example you gave in your prev post again?
    Natural variability/bank account?

    This time with subtitles?

  20. Johnathan Wilkes April 4, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    It’s OK Tony upon rereading it, I got the gist of it.

  21. Tony Price April 4, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    Johnathan Wilkes said:

    “It’s OK Tony upon rereading it, I got the gist of it.

    ‘sorright, I wrote some more, but edited it back to the “crisp and succinct” level, which is significantly less than I usually post.

    Winston Churchill once wrote “I apologise for the long note: I didn’t have the time to write a short one”.

  22. Robert April 4, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

    “…tornadoes in the Dallas-Fort Worth area were brought on by climate change.”

    I don’t doubt it. Once upon a time the climate seemed ordinary, then, on March 18 1925, the climate changed. A tornado cut a 219 mile track through three states and killed 625 people. Terrifying, they say.

    Since the expression “climate change” can be used as loosely as the utterer wishes, we could even say that the Natchez tornado of 1840, generally regarded as the worst before the Tri-State tornado, was due to climate change. Like the St. Louis tornado of 1896, the costliest ever in terms of damage. That was also due to climate change. Why not? (Note: there are no accurate definitions available for “ever” “worst”. It’s just opinion based on death stats, costs, anecdote and a few other things, so the Gainsville and Tupelo disasters of 1936 may have been as bad or “worse”. Also, the pre-Columbian Indians weren’t checking the minimum pressures and millibars of their storms.)

    Now that we can be super-intricate with models and calculations but total slobs with words, who can say what wasn’t caused by climate change? When the temp hit 134F in Death Valley in 1913, that was climate change. When the Galveston Hurricane killed up to 12,000 people in 1900, that was climate change. The Great Labour Day Hurricane of 1935, more intense than Katrina, was due to climate change.

    It’s so liberating, to be a slob with words! It’s climate change! It’s worse than we thought! Prove me wrong!

  23. Tony Price April 4, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    Why a global temperature increase of 2 or 3 degrees C should apparently cause death and devastation to mankind and nature in general is a mystery to me. Across the globe, people live and thrive in a temperature range of about about 80°C. If Glasgow were to warm to the temperature of London, or Sydney to the temperature of Brisbane, where’s the harm? A few degrees increase is slated to cause widespread heatstroke, with no evidence whatsoever, yet New Yorkers flock to Florida on holiday, and even retire there, because it’s warmer. Brits can’t wait to get away to Spain, Greece and warmer climes on holiday. Some retire to Spain, with arrangements in place for pensions to be paid there, and for local healthcare.

    Spain has far less rainfall than Britain, yet we import high-quality Spanish fruit and veg. in large quantities. It’s warmer there, and there’s more sunshine driving photosynthesis. I’ve just read (and blogged on) an article which has alarmed researchers agonising over frost-shattered rocks on the Matterhorn. I have news for them, the Matterhorn’s been suffering such denudation for millions of years – it’s why its the pyramidal shape it is. The normal somehow becomes news and a cause for concern, and variation in normal weather patterns becomes “global weirding” if you “join the dots”.

    What’s wrong with these alarmists? They claim it’s “deniers” who’ve lost the plot and need “treatment”? They’ve been “joining the dots” for decades, and the resulting picture is one of their own making.

  24. el gordo April 4, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    ‘It’s worse than we thought! Prove me wrong!’

    Thanx for the history, Robert, but still the warmists will point to another anomaly as further proof that its climate.

  25. Tony Price April 4, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    I totally forgot – Peter Gleick doesn’t need to “tilt his head to the right and squint”. he can see an upward trend in this 2002-2011 graph

    He said “What about the last decade, as claimed above? The linear trend (the blue line) over the past decade is relatively flat, but in fact it still exhibited a warming trend, despite the temporary cooling forces that are masking the overall warming.”

    Being of a denialist nature, and being a suitable case for treatment, I of course couldn’t see an upward trend, but my picture editor can measure pixels, and could. The thus-calculated trend was 0.27°C over 1000 years. In Harold Ambler’s words “Don’t Sell Your Coat”.

  26. Robert April 4, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    There have been plenty of recent freaks and disasters with tornadoes, especially Bangladesh in 1989, the US outbreak in 2011. Who knows what the temp anomaly map would have looked like in 1974, around the time of the Super Outbreak in the US?

    But if anything should make us slow to point to “extreme” events as proof of anything, it would have to be those Chinese climate catastrophes of the late 19th century. Much of China just dried up in the late 1870s, maybe nine million starved. A few years later in 1887 came the greatest of all the Yellow River floods, at least in recent centuries. Between 900,000 and a million perished.

    The problem with “extreme” is that it is normal, just less frequent than “average”. So let’s burn coal (in quality new facilities), get rich, build solid, get organised and keep an eye out for the neighbours.

  27. Luke April 4, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

    Well it’s a dogs brekky of a massive amount of sceptic bullshit – the old why does 2-3C matter; a hand picked selection of disasters, a bit of meming, framing, picking a few climate stations. So much drongoism such little time.

    May not be warming but in this low Sun, cool phase PDO, back to back Las Ninas – well it ain’t getting any cooler either?

    Hey aren’t we supposed to be in a bone crushing ice age by now? Where’s Archy?

  28. gavin April 4, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Guys: When did we see trucks so thrown around before this week? For info tornadoes and other events or trends I go here. Do YOU?

    JW was a bit slow on the basin – coal thingy too

  29. Graeme M April 4, 2012 at 11:00 pm #

    When, Gavin? 1996 was a good year I believe?

    I think the fact that this tornado struck a truck trailer park may have had something to do with the imagery…

  30. Robert April 4, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    While I’m hand-picking US disasters, we should not forget the 1936 heatwave. In an awful decade for heat and drought, the summer of ’36 stands out for the 5,000 directly heat-related deaths and the enormous area affected.

    But get this: though winters in the thirties were understandably mild in such a hot decade, the 1936 heatwave was preceded by a legendary cold wave. The Dakotas, which were due to fry worse than anyone that summer, nonetheless had February temps of -50C and wind chill estimated at -73C.

    The hardest remembered winter in the US may have been that of 1977-78, around the time of the Global Cooling Scare (which is now not supposed to have occurred). But I guess the big cold of 1936 stands out because of its isolation and the fact that many places experienced their greatest known extremes of both heat and cold all within a four month period.

    Just another hand-picked climate disaster, courtesy of Skeptic Framing. I’m sure that, if it did happen, it can be ignored or even unhappened.

    And, remind me again: Are we at war with Eurasia or Eastasia?

  31. kuhnkat April 5, 2012 at 7:27 am #

    Little Lukey whines,

    “Hey aren’t we supposed to be in a bone crushing ice age by now? Where’s Archy?”

    Hey, aren’t aussie supposed to be in a continuous never ending drought now??


    It sucks when your heroes have feet of clay donut.

  32. gavin April 5, 2012 at 7:44 am #

    Top down thinking Graeme M: The only conclusion we can have from these odd media shows are, brave storm watchers have a handy cam ready despite the risk. Also; these freaky incidents occur more often on the eastern side of the US. For the trend: only the dense data from NOAA is adequate.

    For a personal view, I’ve seen two out of three local twister events at close range. Cycling through the debris of the other 1950’s an hour or so later I was confronted by the evidence of its extremely narrow track through our coastal farm lands. Off shore sightings give more clues about such violent structures.

    further info for climate gurus – about Derechos:

    I associate the word with recollections of Zane Grey’s books and so we may come to whats up with Jen’s snippets from book sellers inc above.

  33. Minister for Truth April 5, 2012 at 8:35 am #

    “Where’s Luke? Stayed in bed today with his hands over his ears?”

    Spot on :davidm of brizzie” judging by his usual inane response

    “Well it’s a dogs brekky of a massive amount of sceptic bullshit – the old why does 2-3C matter; a hand picked selection of disasters, a bit of meming, framing, picking a few climate stations. So much drongoism such little time.”

    Ah… we can all sleep soundly now that the local clown is back in action and under the control of his minders from shonkademia central

    Meanwhile the arch drongo Flannery FAA, as a member of the the mighty and all knowing Wentworth Group have the temerity to suggest that the public have been misled by the MDB Plan

    ….snort …snort …..what that about pots and kettles

  34. Debbie April 5, 2012 at 8:55 am #

    You’re still missing the point Luke,
    ALL of these graphs from whichever organisation, including this one, just prove that we can use statistics and verify almost any assumption at all….mainly because there are so many unknown variables.
    The burning question is:
    Is that a justification to implement sweeping social change and social policy?
    The current political/media agenda has become even more obsessed with weather and climate than farmers are! I never thought I would see that day!
    The figures at this stage are not proving anything that would indicate we are operating outside of normal ranges….they also no longer indicate that human activity is a key driver of climate….especially on a global scale.
    The obsession with extreme events just further prove that we have no chance of managing climate and should instead be working on protecting our environments from these extremes.
    There’s no question that the climate and environment has and can be influenced at a local level, especially in heavily urbanised areas…..but we all actually knew that anyway….did we not?
    Instead of dismissing localised wiggle/wobbles maybe we should be studying those and working out how we can positively impact them at regional levels? We might then have a good chance of actually achieving something worthwhile….

  35. Robert April 5, 2012 at 9:11 am #

    Way back in the nineties, Bob Carr was in the habit of comforting disaster victims by stating that one should get used to the effects of “climate change” and “global warming” (meaningless terms, not my own).

    The people of beachside Brighton in Melbourne could have used some of Bob’s guidance – in 1918! Estimated an F3 and Australia’s most intense urban tornado, the Brighton Tornado was a killer, though Brisbane had a more damaging event in ’73.

    But not far from where I live, the Buladelah tornado of 1970 may have been an F5! Gavin will be fascinated to know that it threw a two ton tractor a hundred metres (estimated) through the air. Nobody died, except a million trees. That Gaia bitch! She’s no tree-hugger, whether you’re gassing her or not.

    The seventies are climatic period which will have to be subtly obliterated by adjustment and re-education. Trouble is, the present post-2007 climate feels a bit like the ’70s. Fortunately, I can delude myself that this is not so, since I am of the skeptical belief that nobody, absolutely nobody, knows what the climate will do in the future. Not even close.

  36. Luke April 5, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    A lot of chatter about tornadoes when AGW makes no predictions.

    “they also no longer indicate that human activity is a key driver of climate….especially on a global scale.” rubbish Debs. someone just told you to say that.

    As the temperature incline will shortly resume, sceptics will then have nowhere to hide. As I said given all the cooling factors at play – it ain’t cooling either !

    Kookers cackles – well Kookers when El Nino returns year after next we’ll see won’t we.

  37. Robert April 5, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    You see, PDO, La Nina, Low Sun…they’re all Big Levers. But they’re not working, are they? Because there’s Bigger Lever pulling another way. And soon there’ll be nowhere to hide for doubters of Big Lever and Giant Mechanism. (The Left isn’t dead, it’s just gone all posh and sciency.)

    Oh, it’s all so terribly simple…except when it’s all so terribly complex.

  38. cohenite April 5, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    Since 1997 the major temperature indices show these trends:

    BEST can be disregarded because of insurmountable flaws, which leaves the other 4; GISS and UAH show trends since 1997 of 0.00939762 and 0.00823924 per year; that is ~ 0.09/0.08C per decade, or about 0.9/8C per century which is about what the official trend is for the preceding century.

    However, both RSS and HadCrut, show a -ve trend and a flat trend respectively of -0.000835651 per year and 0.000838225 per year. That translates to a century trend of -0.08 and 0.08.

    The average century trend of all indices is 0.4C, as extrapolated from the last 17 years, which is about 1/2 of the last century’s trend.

  39. bazza April 5, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

    So Debbie does Bayesian . As she suggested: “The figures at this stage are not proving anything that would indicate we are operating outside of normal ranges”. She is so right. Let me explain the transformation. The new normal over most of our lifetimes has been the recent upward temperature trend around the wiggles coming from El Niño La Niña and other less frequent visitors. So “outside the normal range’ would have only one meaning to a statistician or a neutral observer: Is the last decade significantly different from what we could have reasonably expected, that is different from the trend?. Any other hypothesis is a cherry pick! Of course a more sophisticated analysis or analyst would account for the rash of El Ninos in the early part of the last 15 years ( including an extreme for the century) and La Ninas recently including an extreme in the record of a century or so.

  40. cohenite April 5, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    So bazza does bs. The last 17 years are the new benchmark:

  41. Debbie April 5, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    But Bazza?
    Doesn’t that just land us back into that pesky decadal influence trap?
    It still doesn’t justify or qualify a need for sweeping social reforms and sweeping centralised global policy.
    It mostly proves we still can’t isolate enough of the key drivers which means we have little chance of managing them on a global scale or even a national scale.
    We can and do mitigate on a local scale and we have all continued to learn more about being environmentally responsible at that local scale.
    The rest?
    We are merely observing trends and collecting more data. I have no objection to that BTW but would prefer some honesty about its ability to accurately predict or its usefulness to justify the current obsession in the political and policy implementation area.
    You seem to believe that people have no academic understanding of statistical analysis, its uses and its limitations.
    That is not the problem or the issue.

  42. Graeme M April 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    Well, as a layperson observer, I have to admit it’s hard to ascertain the truth regarding this almost mythical figure, the average global temperature. What I AM hanging out for (and this is mostly because I just don’t get out enough) is the NH summer polar ice extent. There have been quite a few sceptics calling an increase in extent with the suggestion that the Arctic ice is on the rebound.

    Now, 2011 didn’t quite fit with that, but the word is 2012 will make up for that. If it doesn’t, I know I for one will still be following the various blogs but with my fingers in my ears going “lalalala”… That’s because I rather smart arsedly and patronisingly explained to my ‘green’ wife that with temps flat and Arctic ice on the up, we were going to see a cooling trend quite soon. And the Arctic ice in 2011 would demonstrate that. Whoops.

    Still, we need a few more years to have a better idea re temps and ice. Luke has called it above – “the temperature incline will shortly resume”. How soon d’you reckon Luke? I think we should have a ‘sticky on that one for the next decade.

  43. bazza April 5, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    Debbie, it is not just “You seem to believe that people have no academic understanding of statistical analysis, its uses and its limitations. That is not the problem or the issue.” Sadly it is more those with some understanding exploiting those who dont.

  44. el gordo April 5, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    ‘……it ain’t cooling either!’

    But it is flatlining and we’ll all be watching to see what comes next. I’ll be surprised if there is no tipping point of one kind or another.

    Archy said it would fall about 1.5 C degrees by 2020, so he still has time up his sleeve.

  45. Johnathan Wilkes April 5, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    “As the temperature incline will shortly resume”

    What if it doesn’t Luke? What are going to say or do then?

    I have no wager on in either way, but you are willing to predict, like so many before you.

  46. el gordo April 5, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    Vukcevic says the CME’s last month saw a 14% Forbush decrease and it appears to support Svensmark’s hypothesis ‘with a short term fall in cloudiness approaching 7%.

  47. John Sayers April 5, 2012 at 6:26 pm #

    Hey Luke.

    What’s wrong with this analysis?

  48. gavin April 5, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    That WfT link gives us 1.4 – 1.6 C / 100y regardless of what cohenite says

  49. el gordo April 5, 2012 at 8:05 pm #

    Sadly its only weather…

    ‘Elsewhere in south-eastern Australia, it’s the warmest April spell in at least seven years for Canberra and three years for Adelaide.

    ‘It is almost as if the demise of La Nina and the monsoon have unveiled summer’s missing week, Mr Dutschke said.’

    Read more:

  50. el gordo April 5, 2012 at 8:24 pm #

    And so is this…

    ‘Thousands of homes were still without power last night after gales and Arctic blizzards lashed northern Britain early yesterday.

    ‘Motorists were left stranded on roads in some areas where eight inches of snow fell overnight, drifting to 4ft in places.

    ‘Severe weather warnings were issued for parts of Scotland, Wales, northern England and the Midlands, where temperatures have plunged by as much as 20c in the last week.’

    Read more:

  51. Debbie April 5, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

    Well Bazza,
    I would be inclined to agree if you would care to explain who is exploiting whom.
    I have clearly stated what I think has exploited the science and used it inappropriately.
    I suspect you don’t concur?

  52. cohenite April 5, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    “That WfT link gives us 1.4 – 1.6 C / 100y regardless of what cohenite says”

    No, it doesn’t gav; you’ve been on the turps again.

  53. Neville April 6, 2012 at 7:21 am #

    Bob Tisdale has a look at the latest models to be used in AR5 and tried them for hindcasting ( from 1900) and projections to 2100. He thinks that one group will most likely be used.

    He finds again that most of the latest satellite era warming is the result of ENSO. See his summary at the end of all the graphs to understand it better.

    I hope Cohenite might explain this latest info from Bob so that all of us can understand it more. Some of the graphs and different model groupings are hard to understand I’m sure.

  54. gavin April 6, 2012 at 7:31 am #

    “That WfT link gives us 1.4 – 1.6 C / 100y regardless of what cohenite says”

    No, it doesn’t gav; you’ve been on the turps again.

    Aaaah, did you read the “notes” etc?

    Paul prefers the LONG term view

  55. gavin April 6, 2012 at 7:47 am #

    Tisdale’s work is just one man’s musing on the models and it’s my view it won’t run on it’s own outside blogs sphere.

  56. gavin April 6, 2012 at 7:59 am #

    update; “bob tisdale review” won’t float in climate science

  57. cohenite April 6, 2012 at 8:20 am #

    What “notes” gav; those to Beethoven’s 5th?

  58. gavin April 6, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    C’mon cohenite; Neither Bob and Paul above deny warming and dare I say it, they expect it to continue

  59. Debbie April 6, 2012 at 8:46 am #

    So Gav,
    it’s possible to argue both?
    How ironic, given the nature of the discussion 🙂

  60. Neville April 6, 2012 at 9:49 am #

    So silly Gav bags Bob Tisdale, I’m sure he’ll be devastated. sarc. I still hope Cohenite can give us his take on Bob’s latest article and his thoughts on something as simple as ENSO over the last 30 years to explain much of the warming?

    I know this isn’t new, but it’s good to see Bob using his skills and experience to back up the work of others .

    So tell us Gav do you still support Juliar’s idiot co2 tax and why? BTW if the labor and green idiots are so concerned about carbon emissions ( they’re not of course) why are they trying to increase coal export tonnages every year, but crippling our use of cheap coal (and our economy) here in OZ?

    Also tell us why we have to use super expensive, useless solar and wind power? These clueless schemes are filing for bankruptcy all over the US and Europe after being started with taxpayer funds in the first place.

    Simple message, if they remove ongoing taxpayer support the whole putrid mess collapses in a rotting heap. When will you ever wake up Gav?

  61. Neville April 6, 2012 at 9:57 am #

    BTW the Polar Bears are doing just fine and no warming for 15 years as per this post must have helped. YUK YUK.

  62. val majkus April 6, 2012 at 9:59 am #

    o/t but interesting article by S Fred Singer on who or who is not entitled to documents under freedom of information legislation

  63. el gordo April 6, 2012 at 11:17 am #

    The warmists will get some mileage out of this…its the chicken and egg story reworked.

  64. bazza April 6, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    Not 15, 13. “The only statistically acceptable conclusion to be drawn from the HadCRUT4 data is that between” 1999 – 2011 it has gotten hotter!

  65. gavin April 6, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    Nev; although I have a certain respect for Bob’s work even going back, as it’s way ahead of other posters in skeptic circles, it remains only that.

    What others should realize from this comment is that I have a passion for good technical works published in the right place and an aversion for mere promoters elsewhere.

  66. Neville April 6, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    Well Gav tell us where Bob is wrong. And what about mad Labor’s co2 tax and the blind bi-polar hypocrisy?

    BTW just to prove how barking mad these idiots are have a look at this link.

    An elderly lady patient has been told to go to another clinic because of her carbon footprint.
    Meanwhile China, India etc happily increase emissions of co2 every year by a whopping new one billions tonnes extra. Some of that extra co2 comes from Aussie exports.

    Only Labor and the Greens and their supporters would understand ? why we should get involved in this fraud and con trick. Barking mad loonies the lot of them.

  67. Debbie April 6, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    The ONLY statistical conclusion?
    You realise that is a fundamentally incorrect statement don’t you?
    If we’re talking stat models and using ranges ( which we are) there isn’t an ONLY.
    I seriously question your choice of the word ‘hotter’ as well.
    That is neither an academically or statistically sound observation.
    I am still interested in your explanation of who is exploiting whom.

  68. gavin April 6, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    Nev; “don’t be so gullible”, borrowed from the original article comments.

    Please do some homework on your links as this story seems to have fizzed on day one. Barking after the pack has moved on is just yapping for the sake of

  69. Neville April 6, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    Gav what are you yapping about, you really can’t be that stupid. The story is a real story and every fact I mentioned is true, not that the truth or facts matter to you a lot.

    Read it from the UK Telegraph source with the 111 replies by the mostly disgusted readers. Are you really that delusional?

  70. Johnathan Wilkes April 6, 2012 at 7:48 pm #


    Oh yes he can.
    Oh yes he is.

  71. gavin April 6, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    Pardon me guys (being off topic) but the full story was carried in the Daily Mail 2 days ago, letter and all.
    The rest is blog froth.

  72. Mack April 6, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    “Blog froth” that’s a new one Gav. The people at the ABC will be choking on a bit of blog froth they’ve created too. (Their survey results) . Thanks John Sayers.

  73. Johnathan Wilkes April 6, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    I’m more and more convinced that this survey was a set up.
    Others have been thinking along the same lines.

    Have all the “deniers” vote first, and get some numbers, and after the Q&A show where it all would be explained, they will have an other survey where all the get-up people join in, proving how successful the “education” programme was.

    And here I am not believing in conspiracy theories! But cunning schemes are just that, no need for conspiracy.

  74. cohenite April 6, 2012 at 10:14 pm #

    Hi Neville; Bob Tisdale’s latest which you link to is about hindcasting, testing the models’ capacity to predict over the past temperature record; basically if they can’t hindcast they can’t forecast. Bob finds they still can’t hindcast. Koutsoyiannis has already done this; Bob reinforces the point.

  75. el gordo April 7, 2012 at 11:40 am #

    Someone going by the name of Karen is slaying the beasts at Deltoid.

  76. bazza April 7, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    Debbie, my apologies for unintentionally exploiting you but if you go (back?) to the text of Jens post on the left of the graph you will find “The only statistically acceptable conclusion to be drawn from the HadCRUT4 data is that between 1997 – 2011 it has remained constant”. My bit in parenthesis is to show I am quoting from that except I have made a few changes (eg 99 for 97) after the parenthesis as follows. “The only statistically acceptable conclusion to be drawn from the HadCRUT4 data is that between” 1999 – 2011 it has gotten hotter! Your point was “The ONLY statistical conclusion?
    You realise that is a fundamentally incorrect statement don’t you?”.
    I rest my case.You gotta laugh

  77. Debbie April 7, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    What did that prove Bazza?
    Ummmm. . . . Errrrr?
    There is no ONLY? 🙂 🙂 🙂
    You just proved if the ranges get altered the statistical conclusions also change did you not?
    Which means, with this type of statistical work there is no ONLY.
    It doesn’t matter which ‘side’ says it Baz, it still remains a fundamentally incorrect statement.
    I am singularly unimpressed by what Starck has aptly named ‘academic pissing contests’.
    They don’t produce anything scientifically/statistically worthwhile or socially useful.
    Also nice try with the clever evasion of the ‘exploitation’ question.
    I did appreciate the humour and in your mind I possibly deserved it from my treatment of you at a previous post. 🙂

  78. bazza April 7, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    Hoist with your own petard, Debbie? Most people have an innate suspicion of statistical analyses but it would indeed be foolish to use that to discard all statistical analyses or even all models.

  79. luke April 7, 2012 at 3:53 pm #

    Happy Easter from the beach dudes
    – checking the ssts and sea level for has. Polar bears r sick- its agw

  80. cohenite April 7, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    luke; there appears to be a picture of you and some of your playmates at the top of this page; you are the one with a boil on his hand I gather.

  81. Debbie April 7, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    I agree with you Luke,
    but I also need to add that anyone who uses statstics and predictive modelling as a tool know that their suspicions are often, too often, well founded. That applies equally to any side of any argument.


  1. Scientists pin down historic sea level rise - Political Wrinkles - April 4, 2012

    […] predictors out there, but we already knew that. And there's been no warming for fifteen years… Jennifer Marohasy No Global Warming For 15 Years: David Whitehouse so unless that suddenly changes where's the heat going to come from to melt all this ice in the […]

  2. April 5, 2012 | Another Slow News Day - April 5, 2012

    […] […]

  3. Jennifer Marohasy » Your Temperatures Diddled - July 31, 2012

    […] 6. No Global Warming for 15 Years: David Whitehouse. […]

Website by 46digital