This article and graphic from David Rose in the UK Daily Mail has caused quite a stir as we covered it here over the weekend. The Met Office has responded exactly as one would expect they would and I repeat their response below.
From the Met Office WordPress blog:
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:
Hi David,
Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.
Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”
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, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.
As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.
Q.2 “Second, tell me what this 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. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.”
The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.
Q.3 “Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 – such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles – may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?”
We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.
———–
The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.
Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.
=======================================================
One wonders what the Met Office would say about the data if the many circular adjustments and artificial biases were removed from the data.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Check the comments and especially the MO’s replies. They agree with Rose, but are pretending not to.
They sure do like that chart – “eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade”.
Yes, but only after the 1930s were airbrushed out.
To keep Phil Jones happy until retirement, we need a good volcanic eruption so it can be blamed for the absence of warming. For a few years anyway.
“eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade”
——————————–
And many of the highest points on a sine-wave, will be near the crest of the wave. That does not imply that the sine-wave is not in decline from thereon in.
Did these guys ever get beyond kindergarten?
.
I aways suspected the warming was driven by UHI and that would peak at some point, seems it peaked about 16 years ago.
The weasel words: “on record”.
I my self was wondering what happened to 1934?? The year that they say 2010 topped by just 0.2F or 0.4F It would seem to me that 1934? should be ranked a close second or did Hadley scrub those temperatures too
The Met criticise cherry picking of dates and then say
If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS).
Why choose 1979, as we all know this was at the end of a cold period?
”Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.”
so they fully accept what everyone knows? are they thinking 30 years or 130 years? funny though, I don’t recall that argument when they were harping on about CAGW in the early 2000’s!!!
And if the Met disagree with cherry picking, why do they show a CET graph prominently on their website, which begins at the very cold interlude around 1780, instead of showing the full period that the CET series covers, starting in 1659?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/science-or-propaganda/#more-1749
Paul Homewood says:
October 15, 2012 at 10:32 am
absolutely! but of course if they use the proper records and the WHOLE data as reference line – it wouldn’t show what they want!
Quote:
“The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely [!!!!!!]”
Unquote.
longer periods are unlikely…….
I think the linear trend argument is weak. Suppose I want to argue that global warming stopped in 1998, and I cheat. I change the temperatures for 1999 and 2000 to support my case. So I make them both colder before having someone graph the trends for me. It turns out making 1999 and 2000 colder makes my argument weaker as suddenly the trend has gone up! To support my case, I should make 1999 and 2000 warmer than 1998 to argue that global warming stopped in 1998!
Silver Ralph says:
“eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade”
——————————–
And many of the highest points on a sine-wave, will be near the crest of the wave. That does not imply that the sine-wave is not in decline from thereon in.
Did these guys ever get beyond kindergarten?
Of course. All of them did. They aren’t ignorant.
They are dishonest.
Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A tacit admission that they don’t have enough information to attribute ANY change in temperature to any specific factor.
Silver Ralph says:
October 15, 2012 at 10:09 am
I prefer to use the term “plateau.”
They do need to clean things up a bit. I commented on the Met Office blog:
You show 2011 in brown, but it’s not in the legend. That has 2000-2010, which is the only range with an end year that’s not a 9 and implies the past decade was 11 years long. When you update things for 2012, I suggest making 2010-2019 be brown and clarify whether the “past decade” is the last 10 years, 2000-2009, or 2001-2010.
Where did they get the equipment capable of measuring to an accuracy of 5/100ths of a degree?
Canucklehead said “The weasel words: “on record”.”
Weasel words, that’s a great term. I’m going to use that if you don’t mind.
I think how often have I seen weasel words used by researchers, reporters and politicians but could never think of an accurate way to describe them.
Weasel words, I like that very much.
We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend.
Then why aren’t they in your models? And why are you continuing to stump for predictions made with models that you have known “for some time” are missing a component that can both cool and warm at a magnitude larger than the CO2 effect you allege?
In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.
Of course it is. Not an area of ongoing research: figuring out how, combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the warming seen over the decade prior to the last decade.
Paul Homewood
I do enjoy your blog
As you know the Met office tend to like using the Parker CET 1772 data rather the Manley 1659 CET data. I show Manleys data in the same style as Hadley 1772 in my article;(first graph)
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
There is little difference between 1730 and today
Later on in the article I show my own CET rconstruction of CET to 1538 based on observational records, many from the Met office library.
I wonder if you have an opinion as to whether the small UHI adjustment of 0.2C used by the Met office (and quoed in the article) really represents the reality of heat island modern Britain?
tonyb
What happened to 1934?
Silver Ralph says:
October 15, 2012 at 10:09 am
No, they did not get beyond kindergarten, except in media manipulation. The graph that they present might impress some folks who are impressed by bright colors but, just as you point out, absolutely nothing can be inferred from that graph. Surely, they know this. Pathetic.
“…several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.”
–
First they admit that multi-decadal oceanic cycles “may act to slow down or accelerate” the warming trend. But then they go on to say that it and other factors could only account for some of the “reduced warming trend” over the last decade. They can’t bring themselves to admit the obvious — that these factors could also account for the increased warming trend observed from 1980-1996. If oceanic cycles are not yet well understood, why couldn’t they account for some of the warming?
Response does not make a very good argument regarding the anthropomorphic causes of any warming actually occuring over the longer periods of time and, in fact, admits that in the short term “owing to climate variations such as ENSO” temperatures are enhanced or mitigated. So, why not over the longer term as well? Why would only CO2 be a long term causal variable?
“…The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented…”
Reduced warming – It is like the Fonz trying to say SsoSoSooSorrSorry.
“””””…..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,…..”””””
I do NOT doubt, that Temperature sensors that can record Temperature changes much smaller than 0.05 deg C do exist. That is they can accurately record Temperature changes OF THAT THERMOMETER to that kind of precision.
I note that the MET office cited NO ERROR BOUNDS for that 0.05 deg C change only that it was for that 15 year total period they cited, which presumably is the data graphed in the first figure.
So WHY does the MET office place ANY significance on that 0.05 deg C change, if they are unwilling, or reluctant, or simply lackadaisical to the point, that they omitted the error bounds on that 0.05 deg C.
But it’s the lack of connection between their limited data set, and any planetary causal phenomenon that gets me. Meanwhile presumably the atmospheric CO2; that all powerful forcing agent, presumably kept up its inexorable maybe 1.5 deg C per year rise during that time fraim so maybe 20-25 ppm of CO2 with nary a trace of Temperature effect.
Last night on PBS T&V, I watched Bill Moyes carry on a somewhat dumbfounded “interview” with some unknown un-named “photographer” who is pushing hs book/DVD/whatever all about ice, and the geologic record in that ice that proves to him (the “photographer” that we have already passed the tipping point, and are now in unrecoverable territory.
Well he is still in favor of spending billions of the Western world’s productivity to recover from this unrecoverable disaster; so long as they have enough left over to buy his book/DVD/whatever.
No he presented absolutely NO physics/chemistry /etc in support of his “sky-is-falling” hysteria.
Bill Moyes looked his usual goggle eyed bewilderment, and simply lapped up what this otherwise charming looking chap was feeding him.
Yes; Big Bird, is not the only one on the public dole who needs a well deserved retirement.