UPDATE: There’s a response from the Met Office here
A report in the UK Daily Mail reveals a Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it:
By David Rose
- The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
- This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
h/t to reader “Dino”
regarding the significance of the period from 1997, recall that Dr. Ben Santer claimed 17 years was the period needed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said something similar in a WUWT guest post:
There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995.
Bob Tisdale did a 17 and 30 year trend comparison here
Here’s the HADCRUT4 4.1.1. dataset
Yet, Poor Phil’s co-believer, Kevin Trenberth, has no qualms whatsoever about “drawing conclusions” from a much, much shorter period. Just a few days ago Trenberth had declared:
It would seem that in CliSci, the “correct” lapse of time from which one might draw conclusions must depend on the direction to which the “conclusions” are pointing!
Amazing. Simply amazing.
“15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.” Wait til next year.
I understand the need to look at long term trends and 16 years does not fit what we might call “Long term”. If anything, the data from the last 16 years does show that the, “We must do everything today or else!!!” idea was overblown. It looks like the world didn’t end after all.
Typical Phil Jones. When you don’t get the results you expected to see, want, or need to see for future funding…move the goalposts. Wasn’t ten years enough to see a trend regarding a rise in temps, but of course he has to double down on anything else being a trend. He’s not a scientist, he’s a gambler. And a cheating one at that.
Devastating for activist “scientists” when a convenient hypothesis (based upon wishing rather than observation) is extinguished upon collision with stubborn, inconvenient facts.
“Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.”
And yet they drew CO2 causation conclusions much earlier in the slight URBAN warming period between 1980 – 1997..
I do wish they would stop changing their hypothesis and the rules behind it, but, well…. its all they have..! 😉
I suspect James Dellingpole will give this report a lot more attention. 🙂
Ah, HADCRUT 4. UAH shows plenty of warming since 1997, from about -0.8 to +0.34. HADCRUT doesn’t show the 1998 El Niño, how come?
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?
Personally, since I regard the “annual average anomaly” as less precisely indicative as it is being reported, I also don’t much regard either trend; one that shows warming from the 1970’s thru the 1990’s or one that shows stable from the 1990’s to now.
It’s as if I’d been warned I was getting ill because my body temperature had been, this morning, rising from 98.4 F, to 99.6 F, but had lately by evening stabilized at above 98.6 F, plus or minus 0.3 F. Since I don’t regard the measurements as meaningful, I don’t regard them as having much diagnostic, or predictive, value.
Still, it’s somewhat nice to have the quacks exposed.
Anthony, that comment of Phil Jones’s sits ill with his professed 95% “standard” certainty rate as discussed in his Richard Black BBC interview of June 2011. That was when the 16th year of data since 1995 had just come in to allow him to give the 95% certainty nod to a warming trend. Now, two years later he’s hoisted on his own petard but won’t admit it. Maybe we should remind him of the interview….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
One more year until Ben Santer has to eat crow (whatever that means).
“Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.”
===========
It wasn’t too short a period to draw conclusions when temp were going up, immediately on the heels of the “global cooling” scare of the 1970’s.
At one time the folks walking around proclaiming the “end of the world” were regarded as nut cases. Dressed up in lab coats and business suits, we now call them climate scientists and politicians.
mbw says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?
nbw you should address your question to the (warmist) UK Meteorological office – it is their report.
too short a period to be draw conclusions?
Yet back in the antediluvian past, (2006&2007) the MET office were issuing warnings of the hottest year will be the next and the next even hotter, which will be th ehottest years in recorded history….. such is the selective nature of Phil Jones’ assessment, who is nothing more than a temperature measurer than a climatologist.
If he wants a long term trend then according to the CET we are, today, back at the temperatures during the 1690’s-1730’s, or the earlier half of the 18th century
mbw says:
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?
Not sure who you are directing that at as this is from an article in the Daily Mail ( which in the interest of fairness and honesty is one of the most politically far-right and alarmist [in many areas] tabloids in the UK ) written by David Rose based upon a quietly-released report by the UK MET office. The reason for starting at 1997 is simple. That is the point at which recent warming ( natural recovery from the LIA ) has appeared to have plateaued and that’s the assertion being made.
Sure we could start 13 years earlier and show a slight positive trend however the point being made is that it could have stopped rising before it actually starts to trend negative for a few decades. That’s a position a number of people, myself included, are adopting.
This is not to say that we won’t see warm summers again in the next few years or even warm winters. That’s the beauty of a little understood chaotic system. The smart people don’t try too hard to second-guess it.
Call me clueless but didn’t the temps on Dr. Spencer’s graph stay relatively stable from 1979 to the 1997 El Nino. Shouldn’t we wait till 18-20 years before we say the temp is stable. M
aybe wait 22 year for a full Sunspot cycle?
Surely we would have been told by the government and the MSM if this were true. sarc/
Well a few days ago they forecast that Australia was in for a sizzler summer with 4 C degree increase, etc., a few days ago we had snow in parts of Oz. There goes that assertion, some still want to believe it, and let’s face it, ABC weather forecaster suggested there was no snow on the way, although other TV stations were forecasting it. ABC is owned by the government? About 40 years ago snow arrived in Oz all along the east coast up to the Qld border. And on some higher altitudes in Qld i.e., Toowoomba. I remember I sent the cutting to my late sister-in-law in UK and said ‘See we have snow before you?’ Twenty years ago on the Northern Tablelands, we had snow just before Christmas. Thirty years ago we had snow again that even hit the lower slopes, stopped all traffic on the higher altitudes, electricity cuts for 48 hours in Moonbi, just outside Tamworth. Other unusually cold weather has caught us by surprise sometimes, killing fruit tree blossoms and usually hardier native plants. We have no control, just have to go with mother nature and feed the birds who are now hatching their babies in such cold cold conditions.
There’s also been no stratospheric cooling (GHG warming fingerprint) in the last decade an a half.
If you want to say “The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago” you’re pretty much stuck with that year. 😉
The more serious answer concerns what kind of data it would take to falsify the CAGW hypothesis. ie. How many years of non-warming would it take? Dr. Ben Santer seems to think seventeen years would do it. We’re getting close. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
The CAGW paradigm is slowly collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
The predictive value of the climate models is being shown to be laughable.
And the assumptions and hypothesizing going into those models are equally suspect.
“15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.”
Yes, and so is 100.
We seem to have reached Stage 3 of JBS Haldane’s “Four stages of acceptance”:
1. This is worthless nonsense.
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
3. This is true, but quite unimportant.
4. I always said so.
Hmm, hold on guys, isn’t this the data set you claim was faked?
Does this mean you believe it, now that is gives the answer you want?
Does this mean you no longer believe that Phil Jones is a cheat?
But it’s the hottest year eva! (in the USA of course) /sarc
Oops….
LOADED COMMENT: ”The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures”
THE TRUTH: until 81, they were promoting Nuclear Winter for year 2000, because of the CO2 ”dimming” effect – they were ”MASSAGING” the numbers, to look as if it was getting colder until then. Otherwise, the GLOBAL temperature ”OVERALL” was same as always (prof Hubert L
2] because the countdown for year 2000 was getting closer – not to get them on their lies – they turned 180 degrees in the opposite direction / GLOBAL warming at any cost. . coincided with the falling of the Berlin Wall… the western Reds realized that: they will not concur and oppress the democratic west with Kalashnikovs – so they put a green topcoat on their original red colour, and joined the march.
3] Kyoto conference has given lots of publicity to the new Messiahs / lots of cash and power; but also the attention of the Skeptical people. For the first time the ”climatologist and their data” started to be scrutinized – therefore exuberant claims were made, but no proofs to substantiate those. So, the temperature for the last 16y didn’t plateau; overall temperature was always the same, and always will be. Since Darwin published his book – small number of opportunist started to imitate gods – they predicted since then – seven catastrophic GLOBAL warmings around the corner / six ice ages in less than 10 years, and a Nuclear Winter for year 2000. ”””Discernible, aggregate”” and similar words as: may happen, can happen, some say, it’s possible, if happens -are called: Sir Humphrey’s smokescreen / drivel
Because the ”Skeptics” have being duped by the Warmist; to believe in the phony global warmings – now they are in a psychotic research; to justify for GLOBAL warming not eventuating – Warmist are riding on the Skeptic’s ignorance. It’s galactic dust, is it ozone, it’s sunspot, it’s the seawater guilty… CANNOT FACE THE REALITY AND ADMIT THAT: THEY HAVE BEING DUPED BY BIGGER LIARS THAN THEMSELVES. CO2 emission has doubled, since they started threatening with their phony GLOBAL warming – temperature is same as always… their ”GLOBAL temperature Charts” started disappearing up the Skeptic’s butts – on which the con-artists were showing to one hundredth of a degree precision the whole ”’GLOBAL” temperature… For hundreds, and thousands of years they discovered what was the exact temperature on every spot on the planet?!?! For when the planet was still flat and long before the invention of the not reliable thermometer…. and when was only few thermometers in few capital cities only. Whatever wasn’t available – they were making it up. For example: 10y ago, nobody was aware that sunspots exist; but when powerful filter in 2005 was invented, to be able to look at the sun’s surface and see that is not a red ball… ==== the ”Skeptics” pined sunspots to every GLOBAL temperature chart – sunspots to give support for their previous lies… the nutters cannot notice anything wrong, when stated to them that: Chinese were monitoring sunspots for 5000 years. I rest my case
.
They called it global warming but it stopped warming, so they named it climate change, then it stopped changing. Priceless.
Calling all scientists who know more than me with my feet firmly planted on terra firma. John West would you want anymore cooling in the Stratosphere, it is minus 60 C already, it gets warmer in the troposphere that is why pilots fly in the the lower stratosphere? Maybe I am wrong but I only googled the met sites.
“Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.”
=====================================================================
Hmmm….. Did Dr. Phil say what he things caused “the record melt” this year in the Arctic if the warming stopped 15 or 16 years ago?
Where is the Met Office report?
All we seem to get is David Rose’s version (and graphs). And it doesn’t seem to be an anomaly plot (14 °C?).
The warmists gladly adopted the warmth produced by the very strong El Nino of 1997-98 as an indication of AGW. I knew this would bite them in the butt, and it has. They would have a stronger and wiser argument today, if they correctly proclaimed that El Nino warmth for what it was, and did not include it in their AGW warming trend claim. Of course, that would not have been as alarming at the end of the last century, but they might still have some credibility today.
Now, they just look stupid, even to the average Joe.
So, should we all conclude that temperatures are relatively normal, or temporarily normal, or abnormally normal, or apparently normal on a continuing but wholly unpredictable basis? Or are there other possibilities?
Or perhaps, and this is the wine speaking, the plateau is a short respite before we begin a freefall upwards towards utter charbroiledness?
I’m going to bed soon.
Scute – thanks for posting the link to Phil Jones’ ridiculous comment (reported, of course, by the BBC’s Richard Black). Saved me time.
LazyTeenager says:
October 13, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Hmm, hold on guys, isn’t this the data set you claim was faked?
Does this mean you believe it, now that is gives the answer you want?
Does this mean you no longer believe that Phil Jones is a cheat?
===============
Barring fevered dreams, the data tells its own tale.
Gunga Din: I think if you look through WUWT posts, you will find one that explains that there was a major storm in the arctic that was a major contributor to the reduction in ice. But, remember, it has been warming for a LONG time, at least 150 years, so even though it may have stopped it is still warmer than it has been for a while. that would certainly impact summer melts. But there is no real evidence that this past summers low ice levels are in any way outside the norm. We only have satellite measurements for a (relatively) short while, and yet there are many anecdotal records of very low ice in the arctic that may have been as low or lower than what our current satellite record shows….
Nick Stokes says: …….
It’s HADCRUT 4 as far as I am aware but updated with the recent data.
It looks like an anomaly graph to me ( although what 14c average seems to be a little arbitrarily chosen ) but it’s not the issue is it? There is no statistically significant trend either way.
unless determining trends I find the anomaly graphs disingenuous because most Joe public have no idea what they are looking at and it’s rarely explained. ( and I suspect purposefully so )
mbw says:
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?
We didn’t.
The start year is 2012. We pick that year because it is now, and now is the time in which we are most interested.
Then we count back, and see how long a period we can go without any warming. Currently, that is more than 16 years. That is a long time, if predictions of incessant, catastrophic, anthropogenic, weather weirding warming are true. Indicates that they likely aren’t.
apologies for the poor typing. I meant to say ( although that 14c average seems to be a little arbitrarily chosen ).
It’s 4am here and I’ve had more than a few Holsten Pilsner as my weekends are filled with motorcycle racing and inconveniently for me the motogp guys are racing in Japan as we type.
How come the chart shows 2009 as warmer than 2010, and 1997 as warmer than 1998? I thought it was the reverse.
CAGW alarmists ignore or pretend to ignore that Rupert Murdoch’s Sky is part of the non-stop CAGW advocating Aldersgate Group in the UK, no doubt to keep the anti-Murdoch crowd onside. similarly, the Daily Mail is not as anti-CAGW as a few articles by the likes of David Rose might suggest. therefore, i applaud David Rose for breaking the MSM silence and reporting the above, which no other media has, as yet, done:
16 June 2011: Guardian: Bob Ward: The Daily Mail owners buy climate change, so why doesn’t the paper?
The Daily Mail and General Trust is reducing emissions while the paper continues to publish the views of climate sceptics
(Bob Ward is policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science)
The owners of the Daily Mail take climate change very seriously.
The latest annual report of the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) boasts that the company has reduced its emissions of carbon dioxide by more than 13% since 2007, well ahead of its target of a 10% cut by 2012…
Elsewhere, the DMGT website records that the company carried out a review in 2008 to identify “the key risks and opportunities for the group presented by future climate change”.
This review was performed by one of DMGT’s subsidiaries, Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a company (for whom I worked between 2006 and 2008) with headquarters in California that builds computer models of risk for use by the insurance industry.
RMS describes the review as “complementing the efforts being made to measure and reduce DMGT’s carbon footprint” and noted that it “consisted of a thorough assessment of climate change risks to DMGT and opportunities to create business value”…
So why has nobody told the editorial staff at the Daily Mail?…
It is puzzling that the Daily Mail is not more sceptical of the claims made by the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He has a track record for making misleading claims through the media…
Given this latest embarrassment, perhaps the editorial team at the Daily Mail should ask themselves why the newspaper’s parent company apparently doesn’t buy the claims of so-called climate change sceptics?…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/16/daily-mail-climate-change?intcmp=122
give thanx, david rose.
For more impact, a line showing the rise in CO2 over the time period could be overlaid on the chart.
Given that Algore and Streisand are the two biggest global warming hypocrites on this cooling planet, and in light of the Streisand Effect, which will soon play out on this recent MET report, I think the following is appropriate for the occasion:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jYpcFHtxm60
Eatin’ crow?
Try this for size, cui bono:
With a failing El Nino, I wouldn’t be putting a bet on next year being hot either.
BTW, Friday night was talking with my Pa. He’s been a commercial flower grower for 60 years in the same paddock. We were talking about how cold this winter was for Melbourne and he said, “I’ve been planting flowers in winter for 60 years. This is the first one in that time where the flowers failed due to it being so cold.”
He’s not scientific, but he’s got a point. It’s been damn cold here this winter.
I await the warmists’ assertions that this is all predicted by the models. lmao.
LazyTeenager says:
Hmm, hold on guys, isn’t this the data set you claim was faked?
Not “faked”. No-one’s claiming any data set is faked, and you know it.
As it happens, I don’t think the data set is right.
But it’s not my report. Why don’t take your gripe to the UK Met Office?
Come to that though – isn’t this the data set you’ve claimed before was accurate? If it is accurate, then what is your problem?
So what UKMet report released quietly last week was this story based on? Link? Were the comments attributed to Jones and Curry solicited in specific response to this ‘report’?
“””””…..mbw says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?…..””””””
Um…..I think that 1997 was the smallest number for the years, in the data that the MET Office released.
It would be dishonest to put in a lower number than the beginning of the data the MET Office released.
Does that answer your question ?
The climate has flatlined! We said it was dangerous! CO2 has killed the climate!
“… regarding the significance of the period from 1997, recall that Dr. Ben Santer claimed 17 years was the period needed:”
No. Santer claimed that at least 17 years was the period needed. That gives him the opportunity to ratchet that up on an annual basis.
That is one way of avoiding what he and his buddies should have done long ago: Define the criteria of falsifyability for their theory of climate, as represented by the models that they are using to scare the world into giving them money and power. He wont do it.
Neither will NASA GISS ‘scientist’ Jan P Perwitz.. In the comments to this WUWT post he runs from the question of falsifyability criteria like a frightened schoolgirl. He’s at at least 25 years before he even starts to ask those questions.
These guys won’t say how long the temps can fail to rise at all (much less at the rate they predict) before they will consider their theory failed. Because there is NO such period. Their beliefs are not scientific. They are religious. The problem for us becomes how this particular priesthood is going to handle its version of the Great Disappointment.
zootcadillac says: October 13, 2012 at 7:54 pm
“It looks like an anomaly graph to me ( although what 14c average seems to be a little arbitrarily chosen ) but it’s not the issue is it? “
Well, the issue is, what is it? And how is it related to the Met Office It’s attributed to someone called Weller. It doesn’t look to me like a regular global index. It has a huge spike in 2006, which was not a very warm year, and not much of the usual 1998 spike. I think skeptics should be skeptical.
Dale in Melbourne, did you get snow last week too? We did on the Northern Tablelands.
mbw says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm
“…..Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?….”
I’d guess they picked it because that’s the point at which the last warming period stopped.
ie: As per the article headline “Report: Global warming stopped 16 years ago”
Sometimes it is best to read everything, and concentrate.
Proof that mainstream solar & climate scientists have fatally impaired vision:
http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png + http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png
= http://i48.tinypic.com/2v14sc5.gif (slow animation of preceding pair)
Show me the mechanism for removing them from office to make way for more aggressively driven solar-terrestrial-climate exploration.
mbw says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm “…..Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?….”
Here ya go: From the published article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29FIHW34X
Trenberth : ”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work”
I seen no mention in the news report that this was the same alarmist who had participated in a press conference in which the media and the public were led to believe that a link exists between global warming and more intense hurricanes. Chris Landsea who is a cyclone expert resigned from the IPCC over this.
Mr Trenberth! Show the world these so called “specific numbers”? You can not as those numbers are just a figment if your alarmist imagination.
He is an idiot!
Helluva an article really:
….except for that dang picture of steaming cooling towers:
Damage: Global warming has been caused in part by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station. …
Or, “reality is not consistent with the models”.
My mother has informed me that she saw on the tv news a chart with lots of red on it showing how the worlds oceans are turning acidic. Can’t alarm us about global warming so turning to other methods:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57531002/changing-climate-hurting-shellfish-market/
I noticed that the Daily Mail graph has no trend line. It appears no statistical analysis has been done.
I ran linear trends at woodfortrees for all the land/ocean data sets from Jan 1995 to Dec 2011 (17 years in total), in order to avoid any seasonal effects (plotting the annual instead of monthly data would have been an even better choice for that purpose, but I wanted a quick look).
All surface and tropospheric data sets show a warming trend.
HadCRUt3 – 0.08C/decade
HadCRUt4 – 0.14C/decade
GISStemp – 0.12C/decade
RSS – 0.05C/decade
UAH – 0.13C/decade
I haven’t run statistical significance tests, but I’d guess that HadCRUt3 and RSS trends are not statistically significant.
The wide variation indiactes to me that we are at the edge of getting a robust signal – “at least” 17 years, Santer et al say, in order to derive a climate forcing signal. You’d clearly need a longer period to get a more robust trend result.
Santer’s paper concludes:
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18383638/1244615018/name/2011JD016263.pdf
I thought for catastrophic climate change the time needed to draw conclusions was 24 hours!
At least now they know they can’t draw conclusions on CCC until 2030 at the earliest.
Just remembered this handy dandy trend analysis tool at SkS.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Of the warming trends for the recent 17 years for the 5 temp records I derived above, HadCRUt3, RSS and UAH are not statistically significant.
While there are more sophisticated analyses to derive statistically significant trends from shortish data periods, it is probably safe to say that 17 years is a bare minimum but not necessarily sufficient.
Where pray is a link to the source of the allegedly original authoritative graph?
The displayed graph seems to be very different from everything else?
For instance the 1997/8 El Nino is elsewhere shown as warmer in 1998 than 1997. (without knowing even if the x axis years start at Jan or end in December)
Is the whole report in the famous news source “News of the World” possibly a trick intended to embarrass sceptics who might get too excited about it?
What happens if you start in 1995 instead of 1997 which would be 17 years? Does it change that much? Doesn’t the chart show 15 years of data and not 16 years (1997 to 2012)?
barry:
In your post at October 13, 2012 at 10:44 pm you say
Please define what you and Santer mean by the word “robust“.
The Free Online Dictionary provides this set of definitions:
I fail to see how the definitions numbered 1 to 3 and 5 can apply to a statistical “signal” or to a “trend result”.
Hence, it seems you and Santer are claiming that
“The wide variation indicates to me that we are at the edge of getting a rough or crude signal – “at least” 17 years, Santer et al say, in order to derive a climate forcing signal. You’d clearly need a longer period to get a more rough or crude trend result.”
Personally, I do not want to obtain the “rough or crude” results you desire because I prefer the reliable results we have.
Richard
Whatever is happening with the climate it is very worrisome. See in the link for a 7C drop in temperature over a three hour period! ! !
http://www.milfordweather.org.uk/atmospheric.php
The worlds oldest instrumental data base shows not only the steep drop in temperatures over the last decade but that temperatures are much the same now as they were at least 16 years ago
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
tonyb
It is all too late, anyway;
http://www.scotsman.com/news/brown-fifty-days-to-save-the-world-1-779582
From the Daily Mail article quoting Jones : Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: ***pauses of such length had always been expected***, he said.
Oh really, professor ? I don’t recall you or anyone else linked to the IPCC having mentioned that before today. Is there anything else you forgot to tell us ?!
It’s very sad that the AGW whackos were fed so much money by idiot politicians like Obarmy fronting greedy carbon traders and renewables’ corporations. Yet all along the Trenberth- Hansen ‘science’ was so obviously flawed that any professional trained when slide rules reigned and you had to think instead of leaving it to the computers, could see the obvious errors.
To recap, they are as follows:
1. Assume the Earth radiates IR as if an isolated black body in a vacuum, increasing atmospheric IR absorption by ~5x, in turn creating the imaginary positive feedback. in reality the operational emissivity is ~0.16 [63W/m^2/396 W/m^2, 2009 ‘Energy Budget’ data], with most heat transfer by convection until above the cloud level when it switches to radiative..
2. Assume direct thermalisation when this is impossible because of quantum exclusion. In reality, kinetic factors take over; thermalisation must be indirect, mainly at clouds.
3. Assume DOWN emissivity at TOA =1 when it has to be zero because with no direct thermalisation, radiated energy pseudo-scatters into the sink of space.
4. Assume GHG warming is the sum of the individual,contributions when by ~10% RH at ambient, there is no variation of emissivity as CO2 increases, showing water vapour side bands mask CO2 IR emission and absorption. This means there can be no CO2-AGW except in arid regions.
5. Assume clouds with smallest droplets backscatter most light when high cloud albedo is a large droplet phenomenon. This means the net AIE is positive, probably the real AGW, now saturated.
6. Assume 33 K present net GHE when most [~24 K] is from lapse rate warming.
They got the title of the reports right and spelt their names correctly so they get a mark of 5%.
If UHI had an exagerating effect on the growth of global average temperature in the past then as cities/airports etc mature and and temperature measurements take more account of the UHI phenomena so UHI’s s affect on temperature growth would diminish. As growth in new cities/airports would lead to a smaller percentage growth in new UHI vs existing base and new weather stations would be better positioned. So what surprise is a flattening of global average temperature alongside natural cycles and changes in aerosol distribution from west to east. And we can only bounce back from the Little ice Age for so long. CO2 driven models fail miserably don’t they?
Tcha! I went and read the Daily Mail article. Big mistake. There is a picture there of an unnamed power generating station with the following caption:
“Damage: Global warming has been caused in part by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station”
The real ‘smoke’ is from two tall thin smoke stacks and is almost invisible. There are very strict laws governing ‘smoke’. The many cooling towers are venting clouds of STEAM which are a product of the cooling process in the power station. I hate this shoddy level of reporting which is all too common these days.
barry says: “You’d clearly need a longer period to get a more robust trend result.”
No, “trends” are never “robust”. Whenever you do fit a linear you are proposing that a linear model reasonably characterises the data. There is nothing “linear” about climate so one thing you can be sure of is that the model is fundamentally wrong.
As such, any result you get will be wrong and misleading and depends totally on where you start.
The decadal term variations are far larger that the numbers you are looking at, so until you have characterised and removed those you cannot hope to get anything meaningful from “trends”.
Don’t bother doing the stats, your results are not significant anyway.
If we banned the word “trend” from the discussion we might start to learn something about climate.
“Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before
we get worried.” ~ Phil Jones, May 7, 2009
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2208.txt
see david rose article in daily mail 29/01/12 ” data issued without fanfare by met office” : he’s re written the same story !
“New data”?
Also, while I don’t disagree with the thrust of the headline, the Daily Mail has, let’s say, a bit of a reputation amongst UK readers.
Son of mulder; the UHI is mainly the increase of temperature needed to maintain constant convective plus radiative heat transfer when convection is restricted. There is also an effect of reduced evapo-transpiration.
it would be good to see the original Met office report, it wasnt linked to in the story and I can’t fid it on te Met offce website.
Anyone got a link so we can see the original wording?
tonyb
@ S Dalton 1:28am
In his article, David Rose refers to the previous story:-
“Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.”
I refuse to believe climate change is either man-made or accelerating. Why should I have to give up my 7 litre Hummer with Amazonian Rosewood & Snow Leopard skin interior? I’ll have you know I run this little beauty on the tears of poor people, which are carbon neutered… or something. These bloody hippy radicals and crackpot scientists just need to shut the hell up! I have important lifestyle choices to make, and no socialist terrorist pedo-scientilologist is going to tell me how to live my life!!
The Met Office have responded to the Daily Mail story:
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/category/met-office-in-the-media/
From barry on October 13, 2012 at 10:44 pm:
But if you checked the raw data, you might have noticed HadCRUT4 at WFT only runs to the end of 2010.
Currently at the HadCRUT4 download page, these new numbers aren’t available, everything I’ve checked still ends at the end of 2010.
The main page has a map of surface temperature anomalies for August 2012, but that’s it. Wherever the new numbers are, they’ve yet to be released.
Plus, I have no idea what the hell HadCRUT4 actually is. One hundred versions, called “realizations”. The FAQ sure isn’t helping much. WFT just uses the first two columns of the first set on the download page, HadCRUT4 time series: ensemble medians and uncertainties: Global (NH+SH)/2: Monthly.
It looks like they’ve just thrown their hands up and said “We can’t do single numbers”, tossed out their info on bias and measurement and sampling uncertainties, boxed it up a hundred different ways, and left it up to the user to figure out what it all could possibly be good for.
I’ll stick with HadCRUT3 when using Hadley land and sea temperatures. It’s also screwed up, but it’s a sensibly displayed and well-packaged screw-up.
In a blog for serious scientific discussion it is dismaying that some posters are indulging in schoolyard language. There is plenty of talented discussion here and the noise of the taunts threatens to ruin the music.
On the science side, I notice that some posters appear to confuse a change in what is purported to be measured atmospheric temperature with a change in the accumulation, or reduction, in global heat. The Daily Mail article, IMHO, would have improved its scientific credibility considerably if it had addressed this difference explicitly. The clear risk is that we examine atmospheric temperature symptoms to death while ignoring the fact that the patient is thriving; or sick, as the case might be. Clearly, we need to take an approach which integrates temperature and heat.
In terms of unscientific language, the following are examples that I believe demean the otherwise excellent scientific discourse of WUWT:
[DDP says:
Typical Phil Jones. …. He’s not a scientist, he’s a gambler. And a cheating one at that.]
[ferd berple says:
October 13, 2012 at 6:01 pm
“Phil Jones,…
At one time the folks walking around proclaiming the “end of the world” were regarded as nut cases. Dressed up in lab coats and business suits, we now call them climate scientists and politicians.]
[Jim Clarke says:
Now, they just look stupid, even to the average Joe.]
[pat says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:11 pm
CAGW alarmists ignore or pretend to ignore…]
[SAMURAI says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Given that Al gore and Streisand are the two biggest global warming hypocrites on this cooling planet,…]
[JJ says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:08 pm
“… regarding the significance of the period from 1997, recall that Dr. Ben Santer … runs from the question of falsifyability criteria like a frightened schoolgirl.
These guys ..Their beliefs are not scientific. They are religious. The problem for us becomes how this particular priesthood is going to handle its version of the Great Disappointment.]
[jb frodsham says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:57 pm
[Trenberth : …those numbers are just a figment if your alarmist imagination.
He (of Trenberth) is an idiot!]
While I am on the topic, there are the usual unscientific references to ‘deniers’, ‘warmists’, ‘alarmists’, ‘skeptics’ and ‘catastrophists’. These are not scientific terms and, IMHO, should be avoided on a scientific blog. They might be useful in Political Science 101 or in Bible Studies Class. But I doubt even that. They have caused immeasurable, and completely wasted, ill-will. They appear to trigger much illogical emotional rhetoric which has absolutely nothing to do with rational scientific discourse. It is time to move on from them. But to where? I propose, for discussion, the following scientific terms:
Supporter of natural climate theory. (SNCT)
Supporter of anthropomorphic global warming, superimposed on natural climate, theory. (SAGWSNCT)
I have tried to eliminate any sense of religion or faith in these terms. I have tried to remove any pejorative implication about the scientific validity of the positions. I have especially tried to eliminate any reflection on the personal moral and ethical qualities of the person concerned.
Obviously, there are distinctions which would need to be made in individual cases. For example some SAGWSNCTs might think that the degree of AGW is not a serious enough issue to be of concern.
s dalton says: October 14, 2012 at 1:28 am
“see david rose article in daily mail 29/01/12 ” data issued without fanfare by met office” : he’s re written the same story !”
Yes, indeed. From today’s post:
“The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.”
And from last January:
“Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.”
30,000 ->3,000.
Some journalist, this David Rose.
@R. Shearer says:
“15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.” Wait til next year.
Umm… I think that Michael Mann is 47 years old. I assume that he will retire at 65. That will be in 2031.
So it is obvious that the required period to wait before agreeing that warming has stopped MUST be at least 34 years.
Lucky old Phil Jones! He is 60. So he only has to argue that a suitable period is more than 20 years…..
Trenberth : ”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work”
The plan is revealed…the numbers will be tortured, sorry adjusted, until they get the anawer right. I also see visions of the recent past 1997/8 being quietly adjusted down to show it’s warming and that the warmth is causing the cold.
[Phil Jones…] last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions. […]
I think I see how this works now. Where something can can be used to promote the alarmist narrative then 17 years is plenty long enough. For everything else we just make up a suitably long period (preferably falling after retirement) that will be required in order to reach any firm conclusions.
Ah, the joy of climate science.
Would this be global temperatures moving in line with the PDO??????
The most interesting quote from the Daily Mail article is by Professor Phil Jones of the infamous University of East Anglia:
‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Get worried? What does that mean? Surely, if anyone really believes that global warming is going to lead to catastrophic consequences for humankind, then news that it’s stopped shouldn’t be a reason to worry. It should be a cause for relief and joy!
……unless perhaps your funding depends on it.
Scootle says:
October 14, 2012 at 1:24 am
It says a lot about the mindset of ‘Professor’ Phil ‘I leave Excel to the experts’ Jones (and his fellow CAGW travellers, unless he’s using the royal ‘we’) that he considers the idea that CAGW might not be happening something to be ‘worried’ about. Is what he’s really worried about is that the grant money will dry up and he might have to get a real job?
Richard,
relating to trend statistics, the term robust, which has a wide application, generally means that the result (trend) is resistant to noise variation. Non-robust results for linear trends are typified by a significant departure from the derived trend with the addition of one or a few more data points.
For example, while a warming trend is a ‘robust’ result of trend estimates for the last 30 years, results become much more variable with shorter time peroids (5 to 15 years, for example). but this is not the only application.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_statistics
<a href=http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1986/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1986/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1988/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1994/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2006/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2008/trendVisual example
Linear trends from 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992 to present are very similar. The signal is much stronger than the noise, and adding or subtracting another year’s data little changes the result. But once we shorten the data period the trend results change quite dramatically. Therefore, trend estimates of 20 years or longer are ‘robust,’ and trends results for shorter periods are less so, because they are more strongly influenced by the variability in the data. Post 1995, the results become non-signficant in statistical terms.
Exactly; and there’s a danger nobody will want to take this report seriously precisely because it was reported in the Mail, which the greeny Left hates with a passion. It has by the way a huge readership, far greater than any of the broadsheets, mainly of die-hard Tory voters.
It’s true that linear trends have limited application. But my point was against the Daily Mail chart, which has no statistical analysis whatsoever. It is even less reasonable to eye-ball a bunch of noisy data, pick the endpoints, and use that to say something about trends (warming/no change/cooling) – exactly what David rose has done, unfortunately, in the article.
Clearly this is lies from a fossil fuel funded lobby group 😉
We all now the period for significance is directly related to ‘whose significanc’e your out to prove so that 16 years means nothing for AGW but one year of extreme but not usual weather provides undeniable proof for ‘the cause ‘
Re: signal and noise.
It would be worth reading forecaster Nate Silver’s new book on the subject, helpfully titled ‘The Signal and the Noise’. He says some things which upset a certain M. Mann, although he’s not a sceptic. His message is (summarised from a review):
‘The level and sources of variation in the earth’s climate, for example, are so great that “there would be much reason to doubt claims about global warming were it not for their grounding in causality.” ‘
In other words, AGW has little empirical evidence to support it – you have to believe the theory, which is Man -> CO2 doubling -> +3C. The figures *don’t* tell their own story, pace Richard Muller.
He complains that “growing technological sophistication is threatening to bury the world in the pseudo-sophistication of 95 percent confidence intervals and r-squared values.”
Lucia has had a series of statistical posts on signal and noise at her blog. She finds that temperature trends do not support the IPCC AR4 projections.
As a non-scientist daily lurker I am fully aware that my disappointingly alarmist offspring require more than just a Daily Mail article to make them rethink their beliefs. It’s reassuring to see a quote from Judith Curry but I can see nothing about it on her own blog. You do give a url for HADCRUT4 but this tells a layman like me very little. There seems to be more pink and red on the chart than anything else. I have to agree with Bob Fernley-Jones at 11.39pm on 13th October – “Where pray is a link to the source of the allegedly original authoritative graph?” We would all deride any alarmist blog that trumpeted a tabloid article without giving proper sources.
See Met Office rapid response to David Rose here
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/
Don’t worry about the carbondioxide.
Start worrying about the cold……
it is coming sooner than you thought.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Neglected to close the HTML tag.
Visual example
You can see here the stability 9’robustness’) of trends 20 years or longer, and the results of shorter trends, which are more susceptible to noise variation in the data.
kadaka,
Then all you have to do is change the start year to 1994 to see what the 17-year trend looks like.
Here it is
17 year trend for that period is 0.16C/decade.
Dear Dr. Curry, thank you for standing up for the scientific method and having the courage to tell the world what the data shows. I hope your name and reputation will be held up as an example of courage and integrity in science for decades to come. I’m very proud of you and Georgia Tech. Stay strong and hold your head high.
Phillip Bratby says:
October 14, 2012 at 3:48 am
See Met Office rapid response to David Rose here
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/
Thanks for the link Philip. It’s interesting to see that the Met.Office have now switched to a new data set, HADCRUT4, because HADCRUt3 doesn’t show any warming this century. HADCRUT4 has the advantage of allowing them to extrapolate figures for regions of the Arctic where there are no actual thermometer measurements available. This brings HADCRUT4 into line with James Hansen’s GISS and gives much more scope for imaginative manipulation (guessing). It’s rather like me deciding whether to take an umbrella in London based on the weather forecast for Nice in the south of France.
However, using the HADCRUT3 database we see a clear pattern. Temperatures fell from 1880 to 1910, rose from 1910 to 1940, fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 2000 and declined from 2000 onwards.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1911/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1941/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1971/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2012/trend
This is an uncomfortable graph for the Met. Office since it predicted in 2009 that 3 of the next 5 years would be warmer than 1998.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm
This prediction is clearly heading for a spectacular fail.
Mystery as to why a local data set should be compared to global, but in any case, if we’re looking for a climate signal instead of just pointing at the variability, then the current decade is hotter than the previous one, which is hotter than the previous. On climate scales, global warming has not stopped since the 60s. The only way you can conclude otherwise is to look at decadal trends, but that isn’t going to tell you much about climate changes.
REPLY: Careful with that argument, or you’ll be forced to explain why a few trees and Mike Mann’s opinion represents the globe – Anthony
You have HadCut4 data here, updated till August 2012
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html
For 16 years, the trend line slope is : +0.071 / decade.
Met Office response to original article is here:
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/
The answer to question 2 is revealing.
P. solar: No, “trends” are never “robust”. Whenever you do fit a linear you are proposing that a linear model reasonably characterises the data. There is nothing “linear” about climate so one thing you can be sure of is that the model is fundamentally wrong.
barry says:
October 14, 2012 at 3:31 am
It’s true that linear trends have limited application. But my point was against the Daily Mail chart, which has no statistical analysis whatsoever. It is even less reasonable to eye-ball a bunch of noisy data, pick the endpoints, and use that to say something about trends (warming/no change/cooling) – exactly what David rose has done, unfortunately, in the article.
I don’t agree that just plotting the data “less reasonable” than doing inappropriate “trend” fitting.
It is clear without fitting a mathematical model that the data is essentially flat over that period. You don’t need science degree to work it out , nor do you need to know what r-squares , correlation coefficients and statistically significant trends are about.
Adding a trend line would have been poor science since it is not an appropriate model. So adding such a line would have forced an inappropriate interpretation on the reader.
The Daily Mails readership is more interested in tits , slimming and celebs than science (to judge by their content). So any more rigorous stuff would have been lost or confusing.
However, anyone with at least one eye in a reasonable state of repair can see what the data shows.
And all this is from hadSST4 which has added yet more recent warning “adjustments” to the previous hadSST3 (which still seems to be the basic reference dataset).
This is the ‘Mail , not a peer reviewed journal . I think the presentation is appropriate for the target audience.
the Met Office states they answered this question from David Rose:
Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”
with this:
Met Office: “The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period”
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/category/met-office-in-the-media/
the graph with Rose’s article in the Daily Mail illustrates precisely the above. the met office is not denying this, they confirmed it in their answer.
Rose’s article of 13 October could hardly be a re-write of a January article, because he and the Met Office are discussing a period up to August 2012.
the Met Office and Rose refer to updated Hadcrut 4m, which the Met Office states was completed “this week” and the Met Office has a graph to August 2012 on their HadCrut4 page, from which i presume the 1997-August 2012 period has been extracted :
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/
Phil Jones has responded to the facts of the data as David Rose reported them; Judith Curry likewise, meaning the Met Office, Jones, Curry and Rose are all on the same page, so why the attempts to discredit Rose and/or the Daily Mail?
the only argument is whether the data is even more damaging to the CAGW cause than stated, because the data itself has a man-made warming bias.
JJ says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:08 pm
This sounds like the precision used in everyday speech from us software engineers, which is not all that different from scientists and even lawyers.
Had Santer claimed simply “17 years” then I would ask on my snarkier days “Why is 17 years good, but 18 years is bad?” “At least 17 years” affirms that periods of 18 or longer are also good. (Modulo cherry picking and all the other non-absolutes software engineers include.)
There is no ‘red line’ for the Warmistas, beyond which they would admit that no significant AGW is occurring. AGW aka climate change is not only a business for them, it is a religion. As an analogy, and forgive me if I offend the religious, it is like atheists debating the existence of God with true believers. They always keep seeing signs of God everywhere, even if you and I just see a tree or a rock. How many years without evidence is enough for them? There will never be enough. After all, climate is always changing – nicht wahr?
Natural Variability …
Judy Curry said:
“‘[…] Natural variability has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect. It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’”
David Rose wrote of Phil Jones:
1. “Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’”
2. “[…] Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.”
Phil Jones said:
“‘We don’t fully understand how to input things [into climate models] like changes in the oceans […] We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’”
From David Rose’s article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29E78OR9H
I dare Jones to stare at this animation for 1 full minute: http://i48.tinypic.com/2v14sc5.gif
barry
delighted to enlighten you as to why a ‘local’ data set such as Cet has relevance to the global temperatures. Its because many leading scientists say so, and my own studies also indicate it is a good-but not perfect-proxy for the global temperature (assuming global has any meaning when one third of temperature stations are showing cooling). Here is my article citing the studies and also demonstrating that there has been a steadily warming overall trend for 350 years
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
tonyb
barry says:
October 14, 2012 at 4:19 am
You seem to have missed a major point in the article:
One graph at the MET office is interesting, http://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ranked_combined.png includes 2011. Their caption from the article notes:
The “point made above” is also consistent with “no warming” or “plateau”. One can get all excited about 2011 marking the decline since the plateau, but one can also blame that on the La Niñ, ala 2008.
The upcoming El Niño might get the plateau back on track, but that seems to have gone AWOL. I changed the El Niño meter back to NCEP data now that I know how to get their current data. Its data is what Bob Tisdale refers to, and is what I used before I gave up on summary data from NCEP that often stopped getting updated. The ENSO 3.4 value dropped from 0.26 to 0.21. While that change is typical of the noisy signal, this is firmly in the “La Nada” range.
Henry says
The results do not surprise me as an analysis of maximum temperatures on a global sample (47 weather stations) showed that we turned negative (to cooling) in 1995.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
I did not do an analysis of the hadcrut 4 data set yet because I do not trust the data anyway, since I came across some clear hanky panky in Gibraltar (the results there did not tie up at all with neighboring Spanish weather stations),
However, I did come across this graph from Bob Tisdale who looked at it in a bit more detail.
http://i41.tinypic.com/33pek1x.jpg
If you compare the brown global HADISST SST anomalies with my sine wave, you see that things are beginning to fall into place (for me at least).
e.g. you can see that natural “global warming” started around 1927 and lasted until 1995 as can be also predicted from my sine wave. Remember that in my sine wave we are looking at the trend in maximum temperature which is like energy-in, so there could be a few years lag either way.
Looking at that 204 month trend from Bob, it seems we dropped about 0.1 degree C since 2000, right?
I don’t want to frighten you guys, but the trend that I am predicting in my sine wave is looking just about right. Earth energy stores are depleted now and therefore I predict that we will fall as much as we are falling on the maxima. Going by my own wave, we will fall about -0.035 x 5 = -0.2 degrees K in the next 5 years. After that, more cold is yet to come, until about 2038.
Stop worrying about the carbon. Get worried about the cold. The big freeze is here. Winters in the NH are going to be bad. SH is also cooling now, it seems at the same speed…..
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/hadcrut4-v-hadcrut3/
HADCRUT4 V HADCRUT3
October 10, 2012
“The new version increases warming (or rather decreases cooling) since 1998 by 0.09C, a significant amount for a 13 year time span. Whilst the changes should not affect the trend in future years, they will affect the debate as to whether temperatures have increased in the last decade or so.”
Here is a graph of HADCRUT4 V HADCRUT3
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/image8.png
barry:
All your posts – including your response to me – are answered by P. Solar in his post at October 14, 2012 at 4:48 am .
The issue is simple and is as follows.
1.
The trend analysis assumes linearity.
2.
The period of the last 16 years approximates to a linear trend in the HadCRUT3 temperature time series.
3.
Extrapolating back in time, the time series diverges from the recent linear trend about 16 years ago.
4.
Therefore, the data of the last 16 years provide the most “robust” (n.b. your definition of “robust”) linear trend obtainable from the time series for any period ending at the present.
5.
Prior to 16 years ago another linear trend existed for a period of ~17 years.
6.
The data of the entire HadCRUT3 time series are explicable as being a linear rise from the LIA for several centuries with a saw-tooth oscillation overlaid on the linear trend.
7.
The model of 6 differs from the model of a linear trend.
The models of 1 and 6 each indicates absence of discernible AGW. And irrelevant arguments about what is “robust” cannot change that.
Future data may or may not indicate the presence of discernible AGW, but the existing data unambiguously shows the absence of discernible AGW.
However, some people (e.g. Perlw1tz) obfuscate by saying the inability to discern AGW does not prove there is no AGW. This obfuscation is also not relevant because if AGW is too small for it to be observed then it can only be too small for it to be a cause of valid concern.
Richard
P.S. to my above post:
Does anyone actually ever use the word “whilst” in spoken English?
One sees ”whilst” from time to time in writing, but in dozens of trips to the UK I have NEVER heard it used in conversation.
I looked it up and found this (whist I was waiting for my Earl Grey to steep):
mand on February 26, 2009 12:02 pm
As a Brit, whilst sounds quaint to me too. Some do prefer to use it, but you’ll notice that they use it when speaking to their child’s headteacher or in job interviews. In other words, in order to sound posh / clever / better bred than they are.
Anyway, I’m preoccupied now – see you later, after a whilst. 🙂
James Barrington-Biscuitbarrel says: October 14, 2012 at 2:19 am
“….. on the tears of poor people…”
Energy traders, bankers, financiers and traders sporting double barreled names and pretending they are saving the world whilst they enrich themselves trading carbon credits and managing funds is a contemptible thing.
Jimmy lad, I was in Belarus and Ukraine earlier this year, when it was 25- 30 C below zero, and I’ve spent a lot of time in the back blocks of northern China, where it also gets down to minus 25 to 30C below.
There are a lot of poor people in those areas, and they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on energy. Making energy more expensive while you save the world will kill people.
There is no way that Phil Jones and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’. No way, not buying it. Everyone in science knows and understands natural variability, all climatologists know about it and understand it fully. Jones is not being truthful. How could he even contemplate making such a statement. openly. Its is simply not a believable thing to say.
Since there can be no CO2-AGW [multiple reasons], there has to be a solar explanation of this.
The most likely is the 179 year conjunction of the outer planets [Saturn one side, Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus the other], about double the 88 year sine wave period. In 2003, this led to the sudden collapse of the solar magnetic field because the Sun’s centre of mass was at its furthest distance from the barycentre of the solar system, leading to maximum tidal forces.
Allan MacRae says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/#comment-1109222
Henry says. Good comment, good point. I knew they were crooking the results. Anything to keep the AGW dream alive. Like I said, I know that in Gibraltar they manipulated the results as well.
Better is to just trust my own dataset. We dropped by about 0.2 degrees C since 2000 and all my graphs, even the most moderate one (which is the sine wave) show that we will drop by at least another 0.2 degrees C over the next 5 years.
Somehow, looking at history repeating itself, I think they will again somehow manage to fool the people and “hide the decline”.
You answered your own question. The data is the authoritative source. The graph is just a way of representing the data.
WRT the graph in the article: It appears that the person who generated the graph is a graphic artist/photographer named Ben Weller who does work for the Daily Mail.
Then the same goes for the previous ‘warming’ period.
By the way did any of the climate models prior to 2005 project the standstill? I vaguely recollect that the answer is no but my advance apologies if I’m wrong.
Ahhhhhh but they happily draw conclusions (speculations) about the recent US heatwave (lasting several weeks) and linking it to global warming. Now I see how the game is played. 15 years too short while 1 month is OK. Cherry picking season has commenced!!!
Henry@AlecM
Well, before they started with this carbon dioxide nonsense they did look in the direction of the planets.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
To quote from the above paper:
A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
(The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when cooling started?!)
So far, I do not exclude a gravitational or electromagnetic swing/switch that changes the UV coming into earth. In turn this seems to change the chemical reactions of certain chemicals reacting to the UV lying on top of the atmosphere. My sine wave suggests 44 years of cooling (which we know started in 1995) and 44 years of warming. Remember this is energy-in, What earth does with the energy could be different by at least 5 years on either side, probably more.
Good point and for that matter where is the missing hot spot (AGW fingerprint)? Where is the hidden heat?
http://joannenova.com.au/tag/missing-hot-spot/
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/
Many on WUWT have said it before and I’ll say it again: the truth always wins out in the end. According to Santer just 1 more year. I can see many climate scientists anxiously grinding their teeth and quietly wailing in the toilet. Your hidden pain will soon be over chaps.
AlecM:
At October 14, 2012 at 7:00 am you apply the same logical fallacy of ‘Argument From Ignorance’ as warmists when you write concerning global temperature change
No! Absolutely not!
There could be any of several causes.
Indeed, it is quite possible that internal variability of the climate system may dominate both anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing and solar forcing. Several people – including me – have been pointing out this possibility since the early 1990s.
Notably, Richard Lindzen has been consistently explaining the matter. His first publication concerning the possibility of which I am aware was in 1997. Much more recently he has published an explanation at
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=1450
His explanation at that link says
Richard
Ric Werme says:
Had Santer claimed simply “17 years” then I would ask on my snarkier days “Why is 17 years good, but 18 years is bad?” “At least 17 years” affirms that periods of 18 or longer are also good.
Yes. The problem with Santer’s answer is that it is to the wrong question. The answer to the correct question would be phrased in terms of “at most ______ years before we give up on this nonsense.”
They answer the “at least” question, to avoid answering the “at most” question. The “at most” should have been published twenty years ago as part of their prediction. That is what scientists would have done. These guys aren’t scientists. They are religionists. “Scientology” was taken, so they call their faith “climatology”.
The problem is, what do religionists do when prophesy fails? Minor sects either admit they were wrong and their movement dissolves, or they reinterpret the prophesy in a way that avoids falsification. By the second method, minor sects can persist long enough to become major religions. Major religions have money and civil power, so they can make a third response to prophetic failure: control the information that falsifies the prophesy. Climatology is well entrenched with monied interests and civil power, and Climategate has demonstrated the willingness of those with their thumbs on the scales to press down hard. Phil Jones said he’d be worried when the plateau hit 15 years. That means he’s worried now. Trenberth is worried and angry. They aren’t the only ones who can imagine peasants with pitchforks knocking on the abbey door. And when those guys get worried, we should worry about what they’re up to.
HADCRUT4 shows more recent warming than HADCRUT3? There is a hockey stick wrt recent temps in GISSTemp 2.5 vs. 2.0? Huh.
Big Dutch Newspaper
Aarde warmt niet meer op (Earth stops warming )
http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/13073519/__Aarde_warmt_niet_meer_op__.html
Most people leaving a comment say for years to know that they are fooled.
Trenberth : ”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work”
Whats the difference between weather and climate? Statistically speaking how about this: when looking at data weather is what falls in the Prediction Interval and climate is what falls in the Confidence Interval.
Allan MacRae says:
October 14, 2012 at 6:15 am
1/ Comparing two plots of measured then processed data without taking the error bars into account is a meaningless exercise;
2/ Claiming that the temperature rose by 0.09C since with quoting the associated statistical and systematic error is also meaningless. Is it 0.09C +/- 0.01C or 0.09C +/- 0.5C or what?
3/ Claiming to know the change in global temperature [whatever such a dubious concept means] to within ~ 0.1C strains credulity to say the least. The US land based stations at best have a resolution [precision] of 0.01º F [0.006C] with an accuracy [systematic error] of +/- 0.1º F [ +/- 0.06C ] over the range. The errors at two spatially different sites cannot be reduced by averaging, but should be added in quadrature.
LazyTeenager says:
October 13, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Hmm, hold on guys, isn’t this the data set you claim was faked?
Does this mean you believe it, now that is gives the answer you want?
Does this mean you no longer believe that Phil Jones is a cheat?
===============
Actually, Lazy, what we are saying is that even with flawed data, adjusted at all times to favor warming, there has been no warming for 16 years. In other words, even with the deck stacked in favor of “global warming”, the models have failed to accurately predict a 16 year short-term trend.
LazyTeenager says:
October 13, 2012 at 6:47 pm
“Hmm, hold on guys, isn’t this the data set you claim was faked? Does this mean you believe it, now that is gives the answer you want?”
This is too easy Lazy. Had they not stepped the temps up in recent decades and stepped them down in earlier decades (net 0.5 C+ since the 30s) we would have significant cooling instead of “no statistically significant warming”. The trouble with these step functions though is that going forward, you may have to step the recent ones back down again to maintain recent up-trends and this would put 1934 into a “year without summer”. This is likely already in the works – they can’t let this go on past the 17th year.
Has anyone read the alleged report?
No?
Ah, well there’s a reason for that …….
Sometimes it pays to check the veracity of made up news stories.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
Richard: yes, I accept your point. however, the 179 year solar cycle is exemplified by the 1645 event [2×179 years before 2003] which with the cooling ENSO led 40 odd years later to the very cold 1690s of which John Evelyn wrote in his diaries of tree leaves emerging in early June.
The successive event, starting in 1824 did not have the cooling ENSO and was less severe. Because we have had so much heat stored in the oceans in the 20th Century solar Grand Maximum, we will probably have greater relative cooling in the next 40 years.
However, I agree that there are other factors. Thus the Arctic melting probably involves phytoplankton blooms triggered by Fe from melting old ice reducing cloud albedo over much of the Northern hemisphere.The same mechanism accounts with Milankovitch for the end of ice ages. We have also has the growth of Asian aerosol pollution reducing cloud albedo.
By following the Mail story I was led to UK floods. Then I remember the projections of increased droughts. I also recall the huge amounts of rain the UK had from spring to summer and now the autumn. So now compare and contrast co2’s magical powers.
Same kinda nonsense also happened in Australia where permanent drought turned into green deserts, overspilling dams and biblical floods. It’s just the weather and not the climate.
Thanks to Mr Bliss’s link to the Met Office reply on their blog I have now pieced together the claims and counter claims by toggling to and fro between article and blog as well as links given by the Met Office blog post.
I’ve laid out my findings below. It wouldn’t be facetious to liken their claims and counter claims to a hackneyed Hollywood sword fight in a banqueting hall where, instead of a straight duel, they upend tables, grab candelabras and slash down curtains to thwart and deflect the thrusts of the other party. Except in this case it is very far from being chivalric.
That said, the main thrust of the Mail article is correct. This is despite the mealy mouthed wording, stretching of the truth, no source cited for the graph and “smoke billowing” from cooling towers in the picture. It’s a shame that despite being on the high ground, David Rose resorts to these measures. But it is the Daily Mail.
Firstly, the first paragraph of Rose’s article implies right off the bat that there was a written report by the Met Office which stated that global warming stopped 16 years ago:
‘ Global warming stopped 16 years ago reveals Met Office report…’
This is a typical ploy, putting what looks like a quote at the beginning of a sentence, followed by the word ‘reveals’ (not ‘says’). BTW the quote marks above are my quotes of Rose’s article. Therefore Rose is the one making the claim. Although this is correct, he is trying to imply that the Met Office are admitting to it and doing so by making it the central point in a special written report. Furthermore, he implies that this is embarrassing because it was “quietly released”.
The Met Office blog post reply says there is no such report and that Rose must be referring to the HADcrut 4 update. This is probably the case. They say that they had reported that they were working on it six months before and that they had published it on their website. This was in order to counter the claim that it was not quietly revealed. However, Rose says later in his article “…with no media fanfare…”. That, along with the ‘quietly revealed’ earlier on clearly should be taken together and can only mean that it was not trumpeted to the media as it would be if the new data had shown a rise. Therefore, the Met Office were answering the bare bones of the first charge and not the full accusation in the round.
The Met Office go on to say:
“Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.”
However Rose did ask, during their email exchange:
“Q.2 Second, tell me what this [new data] says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century.”
This question is really a two part question: firstly, what does the new data say about their models? Secondly, albeit implicitly, what does it therefore have to say about their decadal climate predictions. The Met Office chose to answer the first of the two in its email reply but not the second. The implicit nature of the second is hardly obscure and
still less so for the Met Office because they are quick to link us to an earlier blog post “on the same theme” (their words) in Jan 2012, publishing an email exchange with Rose on the exact same subject of decadal projections where they answer at length, a question from Rose about the projections. In this earlier post they go onto complain that they were misrepresented because their rambling reply to Rose , citing projections as probabilistic and conflating temperature values with temperature trends, was cut for Rose’s (January) article.
Returning to the October article, Rose says (of the Met Office email exchange spokesman)
“Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009- that three of the the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record- he made no comment.”
There is no specific reference to this in the email exchange which is cited as being reproduced in full by the Met Office blog post writer. Neither does it appear in the January exchange. That ‘3 out of 5’ so-called prediction was almost certainly a ‘probabalistic projection’ and not a prediction. Nevertheless it may have constituted part of the decadal projections which the Met Office knew were being implicitly referred to. This is the only piece of speculation in my comment. I would like to know if this is the case. Still, David Rose could have made it a bit clearer instead of implying that he had asked a direct question and got no answer.
In summary, there was no specific report, the Met Office didn’t declare that global warming had stopped. They didn’t bury anything. They did release new HadCRUT data that now ‘reveals’ that there has been either no warming or statistically insignificant warming in the last 16 years. They did not trumpet this as they have done for warming trends. They implied that they hadn’t been asked about decadal projections which they technically had but chose to ignore that technicality. Rose implied that his questions were direct and clear whereas they were implicit and thereby included a technical get-out if that implication was ignored. If this was a deliberate trap, the Met Office fell into it. However, it is impossible to know if it was deliberate but Rose definitely capitalised on their failure to acknowledge the obvious question of projections needing to be rethought, based on well-trodden ground in previous email exchanges.
I still have no source for that very un-HadCRUt looking graph. I wish they would publish clear temperature tables on their homepage. That site is like a thicket. All tables from them and GISS etc look like 1940’s hand-typed photocopies of enemy code.
Finally, this is for David Rose and the Met Office: I resent having to spend my Sunday afternoon unpicking other people’s spin and prevarications when they know full well that it will take hours of research and a laborious explanation like this to get to the bottom of it. It may seem to you that I have a choice whether to embark on it. However, when I know that the world is being told that temperatures are rising when they are not, how can I possibly just stand by when I can see through your spin, employed both for and against the argument? Neither helps the average Mail reader nor the taxpaying funders of the Met Office.
Scute
Henry@Jimbo
follow the Nile and its flooding and put my sine wave next to it…
makes sense does it not, more rains during a cooling period,
seeing that in general cooling causes condensation….
garymount says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:25 pm
My mother has informed me that she saw on the tv news a chart with lots of red on it showing how the worlds oceans are turning acidic.
=============
To say the oceans are turning acidic is a deception. It is a scientific fraud of the worst sort. Freshwater is much more “acidic” than the oceans for example, and we drink fresh water. Plants and animals live in “acidic” fresh water without any problem.
For all practical purposes it is impossible to turn the oceans acidic. They are mildly caustic, and are perhaps becoming slightly more neutral. However, due to the salt content you cannot make them acidic without first removing the salt. Something that is well beyond the power of human beings. We might as well try and shift the sun in its orbit.
Plants and animals dissolve in a caustic solution more readily than an acidic solution. For example, a caustic solution will dissolve hair and fat, while we drink acids like soda pop and orange juice without any harm. For this reason marine creatures often feel “slimy” as they use mucous to protect themselves from the caustic sea-water.
The oceans in the past were more much more acidic than now, thus it is likely that living creatures have within themselves the ability to survive if the oceans were to magically become acidic. Osmotic pressure due to lack/abundance of salt is what kills marine animals when they move between salt and fresh water environments.
I sent this article to Drudge Report and I’m happy to report that the UK MAIL article (not, alas, this WUWT article) made it on the Drudge Report!!!
Like I said earlier, the Streisand Effect is now running its course.
richardscourtney says:
October 14, 2012 at 8:30 am
For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause.
===========
Exactly. There a huge variation in day/night and winter/summer temperatures. Coupled with an asymmetric surface of the planet, this will lead to an asymmetric distribution of temperature, leading to natural variability in the average temperature.
We know from the paleo data that natural variability of +/- 6C can exists in time periods as short as a decade or two. There is nothing unusual about the much smaller variability observed during the past 150 years.
Here is the Met office response to the Daily Mail article:
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
They claim the article was “wrong”…
Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
The graph does seem to support the Daily Mail Story.
I see that ZedsDeadBed, who faithfully trolled Bishop Hill for a long time, has now gone over to the Daily Mail to comment.
I also see that the Mail article still ends with So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels – all of which I am now sure is rubbish. But still, I’m grateful for the rest of the article.
And the latest comment by the Met Office is here…
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’
It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.
To address some of the points in the article published today:
Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.
Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.
You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:
Interesting responses…
Paul Vaughan shows some stunning correlation pictures up thread here. Yes, they do look like a stunning degree of correlation between ocean temperatures and solar activity that astrophysicists should be taking seriously.
Article for Tallbloke? Work with the Electric Universe people? Demostrate Leif’s bias in this area, while still honouring his expertise? Prayer? All these and more, perhaps. Who was it said, science advances one death at a time, or words to that effect? The most important thing is whether YOU are doing what Great Spirit sent you here to do. All the rest falls into place when you know you are in line with your soul’s purpose or as another said, Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven, and everything else will be added.
2o years of hype….social engineering….green based wealth redistribution…DEAD
Lucy says
….whether YOU are doing what Great Spirit sent you here to do.
Henry says
Hi Lucy, I am so glad to see someone here with faith. You blessed me. Looking at all the comments I get from WUWT about my faith I was beginning to think that Jesus was right when he asked if there actually will be anyone with faith left when He comes back …. (Luke 18vs 8)
Looking for the truth, is always honorable as we know from Jesus conversation with Pilate/….never forgetting that He is the Truth, personified.
I am sure we will wrap up it here soon, as it becomes more and more obvious that humanity is facing some serious cooling in the years ahead. They cannot hide it for much longer. As I have explained earlier, they will have to make some plans. Earth’s energy storehouses are now a bit empty, from now onward I expect average temps to follow the same route as the maxima, falling by at least as much (I hope it is not more)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
But it is not like we have not been there before. If you want to know what the weather was like 88 years ago, look at today’s weather forecast….
Max Planck, I believe – , “science advances one funeral at a time.”
It looks like the starch has been knocked out of the bump up from the 1998 super El Nino. It it hasn’t the La Nina that is now forming will finish it off. This La Nina may become a Super La Nina—but not certain of that yet. But either way, this La Nina will show definite cooling in the earth since 1997.
Blue i.e., La Nina conditions, forming:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_new/pent_temp_godas_eq_xz.gif
More La Nina blue:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_mon.gif
More blue seen creeping across the equator:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/sstanim.gif
@WillR
Thanks for posting the two Met Office blog posts. I should have included them in my comment just before yours
Gunga Din says:
October 13, 2012 at 7:05 pm
“Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.”
=====================================================================
Hmmm….. Did Dr. Phil say what he things (should have been thinks) caused “the record melt” this year in the Arctic if the warming stopped 15 or 16 years ago?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom B. says:
October 13, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Gunga Din: I think if you look through WUWT posts, you will find one that explains that there was a major storm in the arctic that was a major contributor to the reduction in ice. But, remember, it has been warming for a LONG time, at least 150 years, so even though it may have stopped it is still warmer than it has been for a while. that would certainly impact summer melts. But there is no real evidence that this past summers low ice levels are in any way outside the norm. We only have satellite measurements for a (relatively) short while, and yet there are many anecdotal records of very low ice in the arctic that may have been as low or lower than what our current satellite record shows….
========================================================================
Thanks for replying to my comment. I forgot the “sarc” tag.
But what you said is good to remind readers that we don’t know enough or understand enough about the “Global Climate” in general to claim that Man has had much to do with it. As John Coleman pointed out, the real raw data for CAGW is built on sand. To submit our energy policies and economies to an unprovable hypothesis is insane. “Crazy like a fox” comes to mind, but who would be so deceptive to achieve their own goals?
Drudge now has a link to this Daily Mail article. Phil Jones must yearn for the days when he could work without the whole world watching.
Yep…I saw the Drudge link, then came here because I knew there would around a hundred responses.
I, for one, greatly appreciate your efforts. It’s amazing how much work the people around here put into their efforts. Perhaps, a hundred years from now, this will be seen as the flowering of citizen science.
Typhoon is a pedantic windbag at October 14, 2012 at 8:51 am
The source of this post was provided, windbag – don’t ask me to rewrite it.
If you have a legitimate problem, take it up with the author.
Where do they get the precision from raw data that is at best a guess at half a degree accuracy ????
Does anybody know if the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in numerous “cold” stations ceasing to report to the world dataset ?
barry says:
October 14, 2012 at 3:25 am
Linear trends from 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992 to present are very similar. The signal is much stronger than the noise, and adding or subtracting another year’s data little changes the result. But once we shorten the data period the trend results change quite dramatically. Therefore, trend estimates of 20 years or longer are ‘robust,’ and trends results for shorter periods are less so, because they are more strongly influenced by the variability in the data.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, all successful capability to extract signal from noise requires knowledge of the properties of both the signal and the noise (I just made that up but someone prove me wrong). In the case of wireless communications, where noise can often be stronger than the signal, we go to extraordinary lengths to imbue the signal with characteristics to enable us to extract it when deeply buried in noise. The characteristics of the noise are also useful if known. We also encode the signal to help us recognize and correct errors in the signal we extract from the noise.
If you have no idea of the characteristics of the signal and little knowledge of the characteristics of the noise, in my view you will never pull a ‘robust’ signal from the noise because you will have no certainty that what you have extracted is indeed the signal rather than some characteristic of the noise.
Rosco says: October 14, 2012 at 3:30 pm
“Does anybody know if the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in numerous “cold” stations ceasing to report to the world dataset ?”
Rosco, I have read anecdotes that in the Soviet Union (pre~1990) heating fuel was allocated based on how cold it was, so there was widespread false reporting of colder-than-actual temperatures to increase the amount of winter fuel that was allocated.
This practice would have the same result as dropping cold stations – warmer temperatures being reported through the 1990’s since there was no longer any reason to falsify the data.
Perhaps someone can provide a reference source.
Allan MacRae says:
October 14, 2012 at 2:58 pm
So discussing error bars, sources of error, and statistical significance with regards to physical measurements makes one a “pedantic windbag”?
I’m beginning to appreciate why many scientists, outside of climatology, bemoan the poor state of science education.
This is why you shouldn’t drink and derive.
ferdberple says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:46 am
garymount says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:25 pm
My mother has informed me that she saw on the tv news a chart with lots of red on it showing how the worlds oceans are turning acidic.
=============
To say the oceans are turning acidic is a deception. It is a scientific fraud of the worst sort. Freshwater is much more “acidic” than the oceans for example, and we drink fresh water. Plants and animals live in “acidic” fresh water without any problem.
Throw ‘deception’ and ‘fraud’ around at peril of your own credibility.
Many decades of direct observations of the impact of acid rain, and consequent acidification, on biodiversity in various freshwater environments, demonstrate conclusively that acidity can kill.
The impacts range from virtually none at small levels of acidification, through to local extinctions and virtual biotic desertification at high levels of acidification.
Late to this an no one will read this probably, but it isn’t “Georgia Tech” university. It is the Georgia Institute of Technology. No “university” in the title.
Yes, I’m an alumnus.
[ferdberple says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:46 am
garymount says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:25 pm
My mother has informed me that she saw on the tv news a chart with lots of red on it showing how the worlds oceans are turning acidic.
=============
To say the oceans are turning acidic is a deception. It is a scientific fraud of the worst sort. Freshwater is much more “acidic” than the oceans for example, and we drink fresh water. Plants and animals live in “acidic” fresh water without any problem.]
Ferdberple uses two terms which I find distastful in a scientific blog: ‘deception’ and ‘fraud’. These are exremely serious charges. They are not throw-away terms. The latter in particular has legal meaning and is actionable where defamation is at question. I would have preferred the following usage: ‘To say the oceans are turning acidic is incorrect’. The science for this sentence is good. The message is clear. As a corollary, there is a generally-accepted, and scientifically-accurate description of the trend in oceanic chemical consequences of the ever-increasing concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
In relation to freshwater, the generally accepted consensus (a term I hesitate to use, but nevertheless accurate in this context) based on very extensive research and a huge amount of direct field observation, is that very mild changes in acidification of most freshwater environments through acid rain has little or no impact on biodiversity. Beyond that, there is a general trend in which increasing acidification has increasing impacts. This general trend is mediated to some extent by the variable sensitivity to pH levels of different aquatic life-forms. At the more extreme pH ranges, local extinctions occur and virtual biotic deserts form. Historically, it was the phenomenum of ‘dead’ ponds that first raised scientific concern.
Ferdberples general statement that Plants and animals live in “acidic” fresh water ‘without any problem’ is not supported by the evidence.
@commieBob October 14th 2:50pm
Thanks, mate. Makes it worth it.
Barry,
The global warming alarmism was not decided on decades of warming, the claim you are making now is only long enough to judge. It was first decided as early as the mid 1980’s, a period with less than a decade of warming. It was in 1988 with the Hanson global warming testimony to congress.
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4536787614696613&pid=15.1
If it is good enough to show a warming period then, it is good enough to show a non-warming period now. All you are doing is changing the rules all the time with no scientific foundation. A 30 year period is not long enough to judge in my mind, but for the reason the warming previously could never has been alarmed on. Global temperatures are just following the natural roughly 30 year periods of warming and cooling, that is very clear so far.
Typhoon, you wrote anonymously, in first person accusatory tense.
It is a common practise of trolls on this site.
Allan MacRae says:
October 14, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Which part of my original post is trolling as opposed to factual?
I was referring to both the original HADCRUT data and their analysis.
No “you” in my post.
As to whether or not I chose to post anonymously, that’s my business, with no obligation to you.
I personally thank Mother Nature for not cooperating, through sheer chance, with the warmista modeleers. If the warmistas could “show” their correctness, mine and everyone Else’s liberty might be gone already.
This story seems to be doing the rounds of various anti climate change sites, as far as I can tell it’s graph is not based on real data from UK MET, the peak years that UK MET show in their own graphs do not match those in the MailOnline graph, from comment I have seen in other forums the claim that the graph starts at the beginning of 2007 is also incorrect as 2007 started quite cool, the graph also fails to show that. You don’t have to believe me go to the Hadley site look for yourselves. Years like 2005 & 2010 which UK MET show as warm are shown as cooler in the MailOnline graph.
Alright, enough of this nonsense …
HadCRUT4 Signal:
Annual – http://postimage.org/image/o1zqniq21/full
Decadal – http://postimage.org/image/9wtxlph0p/full
30-Year – http://postimage.org/image/xjzhnkbqh/full
CET Signal:
Annual – http://postimage.org/image/s26vzrgix/full
Decadal – http://postimage.org/image/dk9orrp7t/full
30-Year – http://postimage.org/image/5oz5cyfl5/full
Comparison:
Annual – http://postimage.org/image/8o6202p2h/full
Decadal – http://postimage.org/image/ffwh2xe21/full
30-Year – http://postimage.org/image/c6i1wgpyh/full
Pick your time period, choose your answer. Anyone who wants to plot temperature, draw straight lines over it and argue about extrapolation can get lost. Some of you folk would argue the hind leg off a donkey.
AJB,
Please use HadCRUT3. HadCRUT4 replaced HadCRUT3 because 3 caused credibility problems. It was too accurate. HadCRUT4 remedied that situation by “adjusting” the temperature record.
Use HadCRUT3, and see if you get the same result.
ABJ
I think if you go just a little higher, you’ll get the correct part of the donkey’s anatomy from which you speak…
The data links you presented are to 2010… Gee, I wonder why that is? Hmmm….
You also conveniently left off HADCRUT3, CRUTEM3, UAH and RSS global temp databases. Simply an oversight on your part? I don’t think so. These databases also show no statistically significant warming over the past 16 years.
I have absolutely no doubt Global Warming scientists will continue to torture any number of global databases to get the numbers to confess to their dogma.
I really don’t see how these charlatans can continue “fixing” the raw data, especially in light of the EL NIÑO event they were so desperately counting on in 2013 doesn’t seem likely to happen.
Howskecpticalment says: October 14, 2012 at 4:59 pm
“Ferdberple uses two terms which I find distastful in a scientific blog: ‘deception’ and ‘fraud’. These are exremely serious charges. ”
Fraud is the use of deception for material gain.
Fraud requires deception.
Material gain includes financial gain, like windmill subsidies, solar panel subsidies, travel to exotic destinations, graft and of course grants and donations.
Words mean what they mean and should be used where applicable.
“As economic policy, the Kyoto Accord is a disaster. As environmental policy it is a fraud”
Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper
PS.
“My party’s position on the Kyoto Protocol is clear and has been for a long time. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so”
Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper
You know what, he meant it, still does.
Center column of Drudge Report with 30,000,000 page views per day;
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago, Reveals Met Office Report Quietly Released… And Here is the Chart to Prove It
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
D Böehm says, October 14, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Here you go …
HadCRUT3 Signal:
Annual – http://postimage.org/image/odjy8d7s5/full
Decadal – http://postimage.org/image/q6muwosyt/full
30-Year – http://postimage.org/image/819wimtgl/full
HadCRUT 3/4 Comparison:
Annual – http://postimage.org/image/jb2mdkyhx/full
Decadal – http://postimage.org/image/wgi4josdh/full (note period around the 50’s)
30-Year – http://postimage.org/image/64d6e22sl/full
SAMURAI says, October 14, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Both the CET and HadCRUT datasets used run to August 2012. You can’t tease a signal out of the future. CRUTEM3, UAH and RSS will have to wait for another day. I only included CET because it clearly shows that rates of warming during the early 1700s far exceeded anything that happened in the last century. But I guess you missed that.
SAMURAI says: (directed at ABJ)
(SAMURAI’s insult left out)
“The data links you presented are to 2010… Gee, I wonder why that is? Hmmm….”
Try looking at his graph again, the small graduations are years and the data goes past 2010 and into 2012.
Interesting you should use such a defense given the skeptical point of cooling is based on starting in 1998, a year well above the warming trend due to a record El Nino an El Nino that started in late 1997 which is also when the graph in the above story starts. Hmmm indeed!
Andrew30 – I agree, if you pass legislature based on false and/or misleading information that others financially benefit from – then it is deemed acquiring monies under false pretenses? But if you are given a grant to substantiate a political agenda, and manipulate or corrupt the data to prove the hypothesis i.e., the IPCC and Mann, plus Al Gore green energy schemes or carbon trading, I think that is fraud.
Lucy Skywalker (October 14, 2012 at 10:24 am) asked:
“Work with the Electric Universe people?”
Most definitely not. It appears you’ve misinterpreted.
anyone still doubting the gist of the Daily Mail article, needs to ask themselves why have Jones/Curry/Met Office all responded to the facts as outlined by Rose. get a grip.
in the UK, only the Express newspaper has carried the DM report, in a shortened version; however, Express Tribune (with the International Herald Tribune) in Pakistan has it with the Jones/Curry comments:
14 Oct: Express Tribune, Pakistan: Global warming stopped 16 years ago: UK Met department report
A report quietly published by the UK meteorological department has revealed that global warming stopped 16 years ago with no discernible rise in aggregate global temperature, Daily Mail reported on Sunday…
COMMENT: BY MOMINA: “quietly”!!!!!!!
well yes it was so quiet that even we, the students of UEA, also did not hear a whisper in the campus.
It definitely is a bad news for agencies and organisations which cash the “climTe change” cheque.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/451401/global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-uk-met-department-report/
MOMINA IS AN UNUSUAL NAME:
NEXUS: momina sanam
Location: england , norwich
Organisation: UEA, Norwich
Role: student
http://www.nexus.globalquakemodel.org/author/momina
surely that is our Momina. SMILE!
The title of the graph seems confusing.
“Graph showing tenths of a degree above and below 14C world average”
All I can see is a graph showing tenths of a degree above 14C world average, since the vertical axis starts at 0.
Or maybe they meant to say “Graph showing tenths of a degree above and below 14.5C world average”
So it’s either a simple typo or a simple person made the graph.
:/
David– Please take a look at the choice of HADCRUT4 trend-line data A-BJ chooses as his “evidence” that CAGW theory is alive and well…
Don’t make me laugh… The trend lines don’t go through September 2012…. To which you reply: “Oh, but they can’t, because….” Yeah, I know… That’s my point….
Regarding HADCRUT4, this desperate and pitiful attempt for a “new and improved” global database should initially have you laughing on the floor, especially if you run a comparative analysis between it and HADCRUT3. Laughter is soon followed by anger and frustration at the lengths these “scientists” will take to keep their grant money and political agendas alive and well.
If you run a simple Ordinary Least Squares analysis on HADCRUT3, CRUTEM3, UAH and RSS, these databases show absolutely NO warming trend since 1998, which is consistent with the premise of the Daily Mail article.
With the likely start of ANOTHER La NINA cycle highly probable in 2013, and the as the PDO and AMO make their way to multidecadal cooling phases, and as the Sun quickly approaches its lowest solar cycle since 1715, it’s going to be more and more difficult to “hide the decline” and keep “The Cause” alive….
It’s time to pull the plug, or AT LEAST scale back on the $Trillions being spent on this…. “theory”, which seems, by any objective observer, to… be less “settled science” than claimed…
The article says “from the start of 2007”, but the graph is of HADCRUT4 global mean from about half way through 2007. The first half of 2007 was inconveniently cool for the purposes of the author, so while it was referred to in the text, it was not included in the graph.
But who is surprised at this level of patheticness?
Folks,
Just to let you know I’ve updated WFT to use Hadcrut4.1.1 which is up to date to August 2012 – thanks to Sven Jurgenson for pointing out it was available!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:360/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:180/trend
The emperor is now naked. Every false claim about what CO2 does is being destroyed, not by blogs, or sceptics.
By reality.
John Brookes:
You conclude your post at October 14, 2012 at 11:41 pm by asking
Please be assured that no regular reader of WUWT is surprised at the pathetic level of each post you provide.
Richard
Samurai says
If you run a simple Ordinary Least Squares analysis on HADCRUT3, CRUTEM3, UAH and RSS, these databases show absolutely NO warming trend since 1998, which is consistent with the premise of the Daily Mail article.
With the likely start of ANOTHER La NINA cycle highly probable in 2013, and the as the PDO and AMO make their way to multidecadal cooling phases, and as the Sun quickly approaches its lowest solar cycle since 1715, it’s going to be more and more difficult to “hide the decline” and keep “The Cause” alive….
Henry says
I know. I know they are crooks. But how long will they be able to fool the people? According to my own dataset – which I trust better then anything on the table, even though it is only a sample of 47 weather stations – we fell about 0,2 degree C since 2000. By looking at the trend in maxima,
my dataset suggests that earth’s warming stopped and changed to cooling in 1995.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Does any of the data sets that you are referring to, perhaps also have data for maxima?
Furthermore, my dataset shows that earth energy store is now a bit empty, seeing that the speed of cooling on the means has overtaken the speed of cooling on the maxima.
What does this mean?
We are facing some very, very bad cooling in the next few years, as you correctly suggest could be happening. We are at the bottom of the sine wave curve.
From now onward I expect average temps to follow the same route as the maxima, falling by at least as much (I hope it is not more)
It looks like about at least -0.035 degrees C per annum for the next 5 or 6 years. That is another -0.2 degrees C by 2018, bringing the total drop from 2000-2018 to about -0.4 .
Billy Liar,
Yes, you did make that up.
If David Rose had bothered with any of that, then we could talk about that. But he didn’t do any analyses at all. By your own imaginary argument, his comments should be taken less seriously.
But in fact, you don’t need to know the physical properties to extract a trend. You do need to have some understanding of of the physical drivers of noise and trend to talk about cause.
But that’s another subject. Thread topic is David Rose’s ‘analysis,’ isn’t it? How do you think he went by your metirc?
Matt G,
And your corroboration for this is a photo of Hansen?
?
How about the actual testimony?
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
Hansen spoke about the centennial temperature record and posited a warming trend for 30 years to 1988.
Why are people making stuff up?
climatereason,
delighted to enlighten you as to why a ‘local’ data set such as Cet has relevance to the global temperatures. Its because many leading scientists say so
Could you please enlighten me as to which leading scientists (Jones, Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Pileke, Spencer, Lindzen, Christy?) say that CET is a good proxy for global temperatures? Could you cite them, please?
The correlation doesn’t see to be excellent, according to AJB’s chart.
http://postimage.org/image/ffwh2xe21/full
The current solar cycle is scheduled to peak sometime in the next 12 months or so. After that it’s down hill. Plus the predictions for solar cycle 25 are for it to be a very weak one. Brr.
Barry
I never used the word excellent, I said has some ‘relevance.’
The easiest place to see the correlation is in my article with graphics carried here, that put CET besides the BEST historic record with the note;.
“According to studies made by a number of climate scientists, CET is a reasonable proxy for Northern Hemisphere -and to some extent global temperatures- as documented in ‘The Long Slow Thaw’. However, as Hubert Lamb observed, it can ‘show us the tendency but not the precision’. In that light there are a number of comments that can be made about the Combined CET/BEST graph which are shown above in two versions that, viewed together, provide the opportunity to follow the ups and down of the ever changing climate over the 350 years of instrumental records.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/
My article ‘The long slow thaw’ details the scientists who saw a correlation to northern hemisphere and to Global-see Chapter 5 and the references.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
They include Hubert Lamb, E W Bliss, Mike Hulme, Elaine Barrow, Mike Hulme, Phil Jones, Michael Mann. Subsequent to the article I researched another dozen or so who saw some relevance.
I tend to side with Hubert Lamb that we should see CET as an indicator-it is not precise-however, the graphics in the first article do demonstrate a surprising correlation with the wider world, albeit that with Britain being a temperate nation we do not show the extremes that BEST record.
tonyb
barry:
Your post at October 15, 2012 at 5:44 am is disingenuous at best.
Matt G is correct when he writes
But you say
According to Hansen’s own GHCN data there was only warming for about 15 years prior to Hansen’s testimony in 1988: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg&page=1
In other words, Hansen was being deliberately misleading when he talked about the “rate of warming over the last 25 years” (n.b. NOT 30 years). And you claim he did not state such a period but only discussed “the centennial temperature record”.
Please note that his only reference to 30 years with regard to the evidence for AGW is his statement of the climatological mean obtained for reference which he said was “1950 to 1980”.
His major argument in his Submission (in the link you provide and I have quoted) was that 1987 and 1988 were the warmest in the record. He did not mention that this was recovery from the LIA (which he did not mention) but suggested it was an effect of AGW.
As for Hansen using “the centennial temperature record”, that record has two warming periods prior to 1988 according to Hansen’s own GHCN data. These periods were ~1910 to 1940 and 1963 to 1988. The two periods show the same rate of warming but the earlier period was before significant anthropogenic GHG emissions.
In other words, Hansen’s own data shows “the centennial temperature record” clearly indicates recovery from the LIA with no indication of any contribution from AGW.
You conclude your post by asking
Only you can answer that question because only you is “making stuff up”.
Richard
Barry:
In my post to you, I should have mentioned that Matt G was correct when he talked about “only a decade of warming”. At the time of Hansen’s testimony in 1988 that was true according to the then GHCBN data. My response cites the existing GHCN data which has been “adjusted” by Hansen et al. since then.
Richard
@DDP says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:30 pm
“Typical Phil Jones. When you don’t get the results you expected to see, want, or need to see for future funding…move the goalposts.”
——————————————————————————————————
Phil Jones from the climategate emails:
As you
know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers
Phil
TonyB,
Lamb used ‘data’ from all over europe, not just CET, to derive his diagram. I am aware that some researchers have said CET is a reasonable proxy for NH temps, but never global. But Lamb’s work was one of the earliest reconstructions, and you seem to imply in the Long Slow Thaw, that it is a serious competitor for all the later reconstrctions…. but I’m getting off the point.
CET may or may not be a reasonable proxy for NH temps, but it is no substitute for the periods we are talkling about. Why use CET for the last few decades above the global record, which has far more data for both North and South Hemisphere?
I do not understand why CET is such a talking point when discussing recent trends. Different locales/regions have quite different temp profiles. Whatever correlation between CET and global there may be, it just seems a bit of a red-herring for recent global temps.
Richard,
Hansen used a full 30-year period, regardless, and the trend showed significant warming.
The point I’m making is that too short periods are dicey to use to detect climate change. I’d make that point AGAINST Hansen if he had done that in 1988.
But… if you think Hansen was relying on a 15 year trend, and that this was wrong, how does this support David Rose’s 16 year trend?
Lights @ Lucy & HenryP
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/14/pause-discussion-thread/#comment-254630
barry says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:43 am
You’re the one who started prattling on about ‘we are looking for a climate signal’.
My hypothesis, elegantly disproved in your post, is ‘dream on’.
Henry@TonyB, barry, Richard & others
You guys keep not getting the point I have been trying to make for a long time.
Earth stores energy in its waters, vegetations, chemicals, etc. On top of that we have earth’s own volcanic actions which also provides heating/cooling, whatever. So whatever comes out as average temp. is bound to be confusing, even on relatively short terms.
Therefore, the average mean temp. (where ever you sit on earth measuring) is the wrong parameter to look at.
So why on earth do you all keep looking at the wrong parameter?
Start looking at max. temps. which is like energy in, and from there, you can start looking at other parameters.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-
temperatures/
e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/#comment-1109341
Paul says
Lights @ Lucy & HenryP
Henry says
nice song, good lyrics.
where ever there is disorder (like ending up in prison, or worse: on this blog with a bunch of people who never want to listen)
you are the peace sign…
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/07/23/why-do-i-believe-in-god/
lights on? – lights off?
God bless you all!
Nick Stokes:
“Well, the issue is, what is it? And how is it related to the Met Office It’s attributed to someone called Weller. It doesn’t look to me like a regular global index. It has a huge spike in 2006, which was not a very warm year, and not much of the usual 1998 spike. I think skeptics should be skeptical.”
I was, so I had a look. Seems like Hadcrut4 to me:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2012
No real news here! This has been known for a while, and underscores the public’s wisdom in doubting the “warm-mongers.” See:
http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Temp_%26_CO2.html
which was originally posted last March. It looks like governments must find other excuses that justify taxation. Climate doesn’t work anymore!!!
Notice the (unmentioned, even in the Daily Mail) revision that replaced the prior Hadley UEA graphic that now elevated the summer of 2006 to a higher position than 1998. And, of course, the range now exceeds the two tenths of a degree C in the replaced chart. Amazing how past hard data gets a new lease on a more varied life.
See the Daily Mail article for the “newer” version and the colderside link for the original. Both have the same “source.”
Lastly, keep in mind that the sea surface temperatures are still trending upwards, and the 1000 to one ratio of heat content (Ocean to Atmosphere) still is in play. Yet land temps will begin to drag the ocean temperatures down – the lag is likely scores of years, but down they will come eventually.
Wait until the albedo effects of the September open Arctic are felt with early snow deposition surrounding the Arctic ocean. The October lows over the US are a harbinger of things to come!
SAMURAI says October 14, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Excuse me, do you understand what you’re looking at? These plots are of the rate of warming/cooling expressed as running means over specific timescales; the only measure we’re actually interested in. Please check the labels on vertical axes. I’ve plotted three timescales: annual, decadal and the 30-year period climate grant cocktail shakers pull out of thin air. I can do a centennial one if you like. What do you suppose that would show given the lunacy of the base data?
None of them show CAGW theory is alive and well. They all show stasis from about 1995 followed by deceleration, consistent with the Daily Mail article. More importantly, they show no exceptional trend over any timescale and arguments about start and stop points for linear trends cannot apply. CAGW theorists need to find a new red trolley. As Henry P says, it’s going to be more and more difficult to “hide the decline” and keep “The Cause” alive.
Barry
1) Lamb did a pretty good approximation of the \nh/\global temperature reords using a wide variety of sources. In the long slow I highlight his approach as compared to Dr Mann who used very few
2) CET is the most scrutinised temperature data base in the world and as such has had the rough edges knocked off it by Manley and Parker. Many others have recognised that there is a correlation betwen Cet and the Northern Hemisphere/Global temperature. I think Lamb chose the word ‘tendancy’ well. Having said that the intriguing correlation is there for all to see in my first article. Consequently CET has some merit which is why I, and many other researchers, use it
I absolutely agree with you that other areas have different temperature profiles which is why I think the notion of a ‘global’ tempeature is flawed. For example the global record is composed of places that are warmng or cooling and static but at present the warming signal (mostly uhi?) predominates. The cooling areas (one third of all stations) were explored in this article by Brown and Jones. .
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
Personally I wouldn’t bet the house on any temperature record beng acurate enough to base policy on
tonyb
barry:
At October 15, 2012 at 8:26 am (in reply to my refutation of falsehoods from you) you say to me
Firstly, your question is a non sequitur. You claimed that Hansen only relied on the century data and he did not: he relied on then recent data over a shorter time period and made much of the temperature of the individual years 1987 and 1988.
Secondly, the answer to your question is self-evident; i.e.
If Hansen could validly use a 15-year-long period of warming as evidence that AGW exists then it is at least equally valid for Rose to use a 16-year-long period of no warming as evidence that AGW does not exist.
(What is good for the goose is good for the gander).
It seems your posts are becoming progressively more silly as your desperation increases with nature’s refusal to agree with your AGW superstition.
Richard
Worried that data may not show global temperature continuing to rise — confirmation bias anyone?
Peter Staats:
At October 15, 2012 at 12:21 pm you ask
NO! On the contrary.
The warming stopped 16 years ago and many – including me – hope that warming with all its benefits will resume, but we are worried that cooling may occur.
Richard
Bit vague – what ‘few’ trees and which analysis? MBH98 and 99 were about the NH, for example, so which analyses are you referring to, Anthony?
Hmmm….. So I guess the science is not settled and the debate is not over.
Gary Pearse in his reply to Lazyteenager says; “This is too easy Lazy. Had they not stepped the temps up in recent decades and stepped them down in earlier decades (net 0.5 C+ since the 30s) we would have significant cooling instead of “no statistically significant warming”. The trouble with these step functions though is that going forward, you may have to step the recent ones back down again to maintain recent up-trends and this would put 1934 into a “year without summer”. This is likely already in the works – they can’t let this go on past the 17th year.”
In other words the AGW freaks have very possibly shafted humanity twice, once by making us shut down our power stations and replace them with useless windmills and secondly not warned us about the possibilty of colder weather conditions in the future?
barry says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:44 am
Barry,
Only person I see is you making stuff up with Richard partly addressing this. Nobody in the mid 1980’s would have stated that warming had occurred for decades before. If you don”t want to believe that then it is your problem. No wonder your views are wrong when you can’t even get the data facts right.
All the data sets below that cover this 30 year period up to 1988 show no warming before 1980. There was a long period of general cooling with scares about the next ice age. They show that warming occurred after 1980 that is a period less than a decade before 1988. Even the GISS global mean shows a slight linear cooling in the data up to 1979. (shown below)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1959/to:1988/plot/gistemp/from:1959/to:1988/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1959/to:1988/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1959/to:1988/plot/gistemp/from:1959/to:1979/trend
The same basic error is made time and again by both ‘climate skeptics’ and ‘climate changists’ alike. Picking an arbitrary point in the temperature record for the past few years, drawing a linear trend to today, and extrapolating wildly on this basis, is meaningless. Yet it’s being done on this blog, and others like it. It’s being done when heat waves are called evidence for global warming, and when a cold winter is called evidence against it. It’s being done here, when 1997 is picked as a start point and a linear trendline ‘proves’ that a plateau has now been reached prior to a plunge back into an ice age.
The calculation of trends from the last 16 years ignores the basic meaning of ‘climate’, a long-term average over a 30 year period, to avoid getting lost in the noise of short-term variability cycles like ENSO. Anything less than that is not a measure of global climatic change at all. Observations of long-term trends are (like this one).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2012/trend
Models that can successfully reproduce these observed changes can give us a reasonable prediction of future long-term change, on the multi-decadal scale. Let’s stop trying to make short-term trends fit our own agendas, whatever they may be, and concentrate on the impacts of the global changes that we know are happening.
JTR says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/#comment-1112119
henry says
I think it is fair to take a shorter view, like here,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
provided you have a good idea of where we are heading, i.e. the long term trend (no models)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Note one of my comments there about the correlation with Nile flooding.
BTW
did anyone pick up that (very) high peak on hadcrut 4 @ 2007? Looks a bit suspicious to me.
Stop worrying about the carbon. Start preparing for cooler weather.