- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


April 2012
« Mar   May »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

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”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. Comment from: el gordo

    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:

  2. Comment from: el gordo

    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:

  3. Comment from: Debbie

    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?

  4. Comment from: cohenite

    “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.

  5. Comment from: Neville

    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.

  6. Comment from: gavin

    “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

  7. Comment from: gavin

    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.

  8. Comment from: gavin

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

  9. Comment from: cohenite

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

  10. Comment from: gavin

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

  11. Comment from: Debbie

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

  12. Comment from: Neville

    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?

  13. Comment from: Neville

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

  14. Comment from: val majkus

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

  15. Comment from: el gordo

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

  16. Comment from: bazza

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

  17. Comment from: gavin

    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.

  18. Comment from: Neville

    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.

  19. Comment from: Debbie

    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.

  20. Comment from: gavin

    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

  21. Comment from: Neville

    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?

  22. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes


    Oh yes he can.
    Oh yes he is.

  23. Comment from: gavin

    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.

  24. Comment from: Mack

    “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.

  25. Comment from: Johnathan Wilkes

    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.

  26. Comment from: cohenite

    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.

  27. Comment from: el gordo

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

  28. Comment from: bazza

    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

  29. Comment from: Debbie

    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. :-)

  30. Comment from: bazza

    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.

  31. Comment from: luke

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

  32. Comment from: cohenite

    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.

  33. Comment from: Debbie

    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.

  34. Comment from: Jennifer Marohasy » Your Temperatures Diddled

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

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All