The “pause” in the global temperature rise is at 18+ years. This is disconcerting the warmer scientists because atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) content has been increasing during this period. The warmers have resorted to very poorly disguised attempts to alter the temperature record. Despite their temperature record alterations, the global temperature is well below that forecast by the IPCC in their 1990 report. How much altering of the record must the warmers do to get back in step with the IPCC forecasts? Lord Monckton of Brenchley has posted on the WUWT website “The abject failure of official global-warming predictions”. In his posting he compares land-based temperature organizations and satellite based temperature organizations versus the prediction by the IPCC.
Two charts follow: The first is the UAH plot of global temperatures for an 18 years and 6 months long pause. UAH is a satellite-based record. The second is the RSS satellite based temperatures which differs slightly from the UAH data. The RSS data yields a pause of 18 years and 8 months duration.
UAH Global Temperature Chart Showing Duration of the Pause. The left hand scale shows temperature anomalies (plus and minus) in degrees C. The right hand scale shows atmospheric CO2 concentration in PPM. The heavy blue line is the global temperature trend line for the period In small(er) print in the middle of the chart is the trend line slope. For this chart, the trend is a -0.01C temperature change per century.
RSS Global Temperature Chart Showing the Duration Of the Pause. Right and left axis are the same as described for the UAH chart. The trend line slope for this chart is –0.04 C per century.
And the following chart is the ground-based temperature chart for the same period:
The trend line slope for the ground based temperature organizations is +1.14C per century.
Next Monckton contrasts the satellite and ground based organizations temperatures versus the IPCC predicted temperatures. Before the chart is posted, look at Monckton’s description of what the chart shows:
The zones colored orange and red, bounded by the two red needles, are, respectively, the low-end and high-end medium-term predictions made by the IPCC in 1990 that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº in the 36 years to 2025, equivalent to 2.78 [1.94, 4.17] Cº/century (page xxiv) The boundary between the two zones is the IPCC’s then best prediction: warming equivalent to about 2.8 C°/century by now. (Essentially, in 1990 the IPCC made a forecast of what the global temperatures would be in 2025. Then Monckton extended that IPCC forecast to 100 years.)
The green region shows the range of measured global temperatures over the quarter-century since 1990. GISS, as usual following the alterations that were made to all three terrestrial datasets in the two years preceding the Paris climate conference, gives the highest value, at 1.71 C°/century equivalent. The UAH and RSS datasets are at the lower bound of observation, at 1.00 and 1.11 C°/century respectively. (Again, Monckton factored the 26years of observed temperatures for the period from 1990 to 2015 up to what they would like after another 74 year. Now both the IPCC and Observed temperatures are a century equivalent.)
Monckton says the following:
“Two remarkable facts stand out. First, the entire interval of observational measurements is below the IPCC’s least estimate in 1990, individual measurements falling between one-half and one-third of the IPCC’s then central estimate”.
Monckton points out that the IPCC’s most likely temperature would be 2.8C in the following:
” Secondly, the interval between the UAH and GISS measurements is very large – 0.71 C°/century equivalent. The GISS warming rate is higher by 71% than the UAH warming rate – and these are measured rates. But the central IPCC predicted rate is not far short of thrice the UAH measured rate, and the highest predicted rate is more than four times the UAH measured rate.”
Monckton presents more comparisons and I would suggest you read his complete posting.
This is intriguing material. At this time the trends are not favorable to the man-made catastrophic global warming theory. Even the ground station temperature reading are well below the forecast by the IPCC. So even if the ground stations were correct, (no pause), the warmers can take no delight in how far the observed temperatures are below the forecasts temperatures.
A sizeable body of evidence suggest that the next two are three decades may be periods of cooling based upon the diminished Solar activity.
The climate forcing agents are not well defined or even known, meaning it could go colder or hotter because our understanding of our climate is still in its infancy. That is why we are skeptics.
The next posting will have some of Dr. Roy Spencer’s thoughts about the satellite versus ground station temperature measurements and is that there seems to be a crack developing in the warmer’s support for the last fall’s manipulation of temperature measurements.
cbdakota
Climate Change Sanity 
You picked a bad month to repeat the 18 year 8 month talking point. The UAH global anomaly is out for February and it’s the highest in the satellite record. Pick any date in the past and you’ll find the trend up to February 2016 is positive.
The 18+ pause claim took advantage of the incredible peak from the 1998 El Nino. Even before the new record the last 19 years showed warming as well as the last 17 years. Now that the last 18 years is from one El Nino peak to another the warming trend is clear.
Craig Tevis
I knew that a new peak was coming. Have mentioned this in a number of my postings. And yet the facts are that although the Pause may be interrupted, the warming rate is still way beneath the forecast. And the future may not be kind to the warmers. The El Nino is dissipating and the La Nina is forecast to be, as usual, cooling. Some say very cooling. Many in the scientific community regard ENSO as a natural forcing agent, by the way. The question is not really does global warming exist. That has been ongoing for centuries, but rather is it caused by CO2. My view is that CO2 is not the all powerful OZ,
As a skeptic, I shall wait and see and believe in the data as opposed to computer forecasts.
Thanks for your comment.
cbdakota
Global warming has been the subject of arduous debates for more than 30 years. And most of the claims say that modern civilization is responsible for the higher atmospheric temperatures, which were caused by man-made greenhouse gases. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the main supporter of this thesis. The oceans affected by naval and merchant ships operating and sailing the seas back and forth should have been the hottest topic in the debate on climate change since meteorology was established as a science in the late 19th century. Instead of that, oceans were ignored up to the late 20th century and not even today do they enjoy the significant position they deserve. Oceans are a decisive climatic force, the second after the sun. You can find more on this subject at http://www.1ocean-1climate.com.