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.
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.
From the NCDC web site: “Why are there more cold (negative) step changes than warm (positive) step changes in the historical land surface air temperature records represented in the GHCN v3 dataset? The reason for the larger number of cold step changes is not completely clear, but they may be due in part to systematic changes in station locations from city centers to cooler airport locations that occurred in many parts of the world from the 1930s through the 1960s.”
So, NCDC says maybe people moved the thermometers from city centers to cooler outside the city airports. So, NCDC adjust the temperature back by adding in increments for the removal of the thermometers from the heat island effect adding in the artifical heat of the city which they seem to want to keep including even going to the extent of adding it back in when people try to move thermometers to less biased locations. Okay. But why are they adding back in the heat island effect?
Is there a different way to read their statement? Why make these adjustments anyway? Can’t we assume that over a large enough sample of thermometers located by people they are not systematically choosing cool locations or warm locations but choosing better locations over time or at least equally bad locations. The large magnitude of the “adjustments” subtracting and adding 0.5C to the historical record implies almost a systematic attempt by thermometer placers to “reduce” the temperature today and an opposite motive in the past people systematically attempted to raise the temperature by placing thermometers in heated places but somewhere around 1980 thermometer placers systematically changed motives to reducing temp readings from their previous bias to place instruments trying to raise temperatures. Without justifying such counterintuitive behavior don’t we have to assume that over time thermometers in the US are sufficiently distributed and being placed over time with either the same or better overall placement? How can one justify a 0.5C adjustment to the overall record becasue of a bias in placement that hasn’t been demonstrated but simply through mathematical trickery to the underlying data?
What! Bring out the 97%. Now where did I hear about the 95%+ or 97%+ or whatever ‘certainty’ that it was man’s greenhouse gases what done it?
Remember this quote chaps. It’s the one to use whenever they attribute weather events to climate change. The funny thing is that despite this quote they keep ignoring it. They know full well the IPCC and the WMO use 30 years or more of weather data to define climate.
In other words, trends don’t matter because of natural variablity.
Except when we tell you its CO2!!!
Time to spank these children and send them to bed.
This is OT – on what appears to be another new form of censorship.
As some may know, WOT is a very popular Firefox add-on whose main original purpose was to warn users about potentially unsafe sites (unsafe in the technical sense: trojan horses etc.). It works by people giving it a safe or unsafe rating.
If a site has a bad reputation, it gives you a red circle next to a google search result. If you try to go to it directly from a link, you get a big warning page about its potential unsafety. Most people will be deterred from going to it, unless they personally know it’s safe.
I’ve been noticing that this add-on is increasingly being used as a means of censoring the views of sites. Of the blogroll on the right side of WUWT, at least three sites have been thus censored:
C3 Headlines
The GWPF
CO2 Science
I am not very familiar with the first two, but I often visit CO2 Science, a very informative site, and was surprised to see it had acquired the reputation of being unsafe through WOT voting.
All kinds of sites are being thus labeled just because voters disagree with the ideas they find in them, nothing to do with their safety.
Example: the Save America Foundation is a perfectly safe site. It happens to be concerned with the lack of transparency inherent in electronic voting machines, the potential for fraud, and various other constitutional issues. Today I wanted to go to it in order to read an older article by Victoria Collier (who has just published a new report on the topic in the November issue of Harper’s Magazine). Again, you get the spooky-looking WOT page warning you that you may be going into unsafe territory. I am considering turning WOT off permanently. Such zealotry everywhere!!
http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/category/voter-fraud/
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.
Just as 10 of my tallest years occurred in my last decade… because I stopped growing 40 years ago
http://tinyurl.com/ageHeight
Center column of Drudge Report with 30,000,000 page views per day;
http://www.drudgereport.com/
That’s what I call critical mass public consumption of truth.
“As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading…….For example, 1979 to 2011.”
“August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina)”
Actually, August 2012 was near the end of a weak El Nino. And why would we think that the 1997 value did not use January data? The title of the graph does not mention only Augusts. Even ignoring all that, the linear trend was supposed to be 0.2 C per decade. His using the lower 0.05 numbers is rather indicative that the realized warming over that period is much lower than the IPCC’s best estimate.
obviously Michael Mann hasn’t been observing the data!
4 Oct: Guardian: Jo Confino: Climate change may force evacuation of vulnerable island states within a decade
(Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University)
Mann, who is one of the primary targets for attacks by “climate deniers,” said that there is still uncertainty about the speed of global warming as it is not clear what the impact of feedback mechanisms could be…
“If you look at the US, some of these things are unfolding ahead of schedule and we are already contending with climate change impacts that were once theoretical,” he said.
“We predicted decades ago that this might eventually happen. We are watching them unfold and there are very real consequences to our economy and to our environment.
“The climate models tell us that what today are record breaking levels of heat will become a typical summer in a matter of 20-30 years if we carry on with business as usual. Not only will this become the new normal but we will have to change the scale because we will see heat and drought far worse than anything we have seen before.”
The silver lining in all the bad news is that while the political system is gridlocked when it comes to confronting climate change, public attitudes are starting to change.
“It is going to take a little while to sink in,” says Mann “but there is evidence of a dramatic shift in awareness and the public increasingly recognises climate change is real and if the public becomes convinced of this, they will demand action and they are connecting the dots because we are seeing climate change playing out in a very visible way.
“I think we are close to a potential tipping point in public consciousness and what will tip it, you never quite know, but another summer like the one we just witnessed we will see a dramatic shift in public pressure to do something about this problem.”…
He said the tactics of those who question climate change was not only to intimidate scientists already in the public arena, but also to warn off others from taking part in the public discourse.
But Mann believes the power of the Koch brothers and others in the fossil fuel lobby, whom he believes have been responsible for poisoning the whole climate change debate, is on the wane.
“I am optimistic,” he says. “The forces of denial will not go down with a whimper and as the rhetoric becomes more heated and the attacks become more concerted, we see the last vestiges of a movement that is dying…
“There are an increasing number of companies like Walmart which are ideologically conservative but have a real commitment to sustainability as they realise that as people become more concerned, they will reward companies that are part of the solution.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/polar-arctic-greenland-ice-climate-change?newsfeed=true
“Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC”
I;ve seen various dates as to when Co2 started to cause some warming. 1950 is used by BEST. Others use 1970.
In either case, the concept of 140 years of AGW is bogus and should not have been used.
Rose’s headline “global warming stopped ” is imprecise and misleading”. It is true that SST data – the best measure of global temperature trends because of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the UHI effect on the land data – show that there has been no net warming since 1997 – with CO2 up 8,5% .However the same data show that warming peaked in about 2003 and that since then the earth has actually been in a cooling trend. Empirically the phase of the PDO and the declining solar magnetic field strength ( Livinston and Penn) indicating a possible coming Maunder minimum , suggest at least 20 – 30 years of cooling. Beyoned that our knowledge is insufficient to make any actionable predictions. The IPCC climate models were and are structured to produce a desired result and have limited empirical connection to the real climate.
no mention yet of the anomaly period they used for that chart at the end (1961-1990). whenever i see the unusually cold 60s/70s as a ‘normal’ period, i see red flags. either use the most recent 30 year period or use the entire time period being compared…
When ever you seen any two decimal places claims for precision, you should ask yourself is this in practice possible or is it merely an artefact of ‘adjustment ; that come not from know facts but intelligent ‘guess work ‘
Hands up who thinks there is much chance of temperature records from 100 or even 70 years ago being correct to two decimal places.
Gras Albert
“Just as 10 of my tallest years occurred in my last decade… because I stopped growing 40 years ago”
Thanks, a useful analogy
“…The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented…”
Neither was the previous period of increased warming.
With more, let’s say independent forecasters inclining to the view that temps are about to head downhill over the next decade or two, the entertainment might get better yet in the years to come.
I have a suggestion for some real number crunching here; Remove all decimals.
What do we get?
A straight line. In other words; Nothing to be alarmed over.
klem says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:22 am
You may also like to get fully weaseled up:
http://thedilbertstore.com/products/65162-dilbert-and-the-way-of-the-weasel
“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.”
Why do they get away with the above, often repeated, statement as evidence that warming is continuing? In that context it’s logically meaningless because it’s exactly what you’d expect if there had been warming 9from whatever source) which stopped in the last decade or so. Once something warms up, it takes time to cool down again even if you turn down the heat source.
In fact, anything else would suggest worryingly rapid cooling ahead!
jmrsudbury says:
October 15, 2012 at 1:23 pm
> “August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina)”
> Actually, August 2012 was near the end of a weak El Nino.
El Niño conditions didn’t last long enough to cause things to be declared an El Niño. I don’t have time to dig up the definition, but it’s sort of like a recession – by the time it’s declared, everyone knows it is.
More to the point – I think El Niño warming takes a few month to make it into the temperature record, so we may not have seen it yet.
Buy the biggest computer on the block and all the big iron goes to your head.
Or is that the biggest computer in the country?
http://adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/533454/Transcending-climate-catastrophe.html?nav=5041
1) It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.
Says the Met Office. So if we do not get back to warming by 2015, what, then? Does “unlikely” become “within variation as predicted by computer modelling”?
2) 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.
For a start: “reduced warming trend”, i.e. statistically zero. Then: CO2 forcing must equal at least the negative forcings of the other, cooling trends. But they are not sure. Still, you could rule some out: volcanic eruptions? Definite “no”. Aerosol emissions? Just got a negative forcing number to check. Solar … another hard number to check.
They are getting backed into a corner, you think?
Its important to understand that not only is temperature not responding but the energy is missing. Climate and weather are one thing but conservation of energy is an
Its important to understand that not only is temperature not responding but the energy is missing. Climate and weather are one thing but conservation of energy is an immutable law that must be satisfied instant by instant. The energy is missing. It’s not in the oceans it’s not in the atmosphere it’s not on the earth. It escaped. If it escaped and they didn’t predict it would escape then how dO we know it won’t all escape? If that energy has escaped why? How can any prediction be taken seriously if they didn’t understand this?
“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.”
Moreover, their claim is an absolute insult to anyone who understands a minimal level of Math, Science, or logic. It is an insult for the gang to think there are so many “stupid” people who can not see through the poor logic of their statement. Sure, some of the mathematically challenged folks may not see through the manipulation of the comment immediately, but once explained they understand.
How stupid do they think we are??
It is obvious that the agw fanatics think little of average person. They assume their scare tactics will work that if they say that te petabytes remain high that the average person then concludes they are right that temperatures could climb 3C by 2100 when there is zero change in nearly 2 decades. This may work for another few years but it’s unmistakable that the consequences of agw is inconsequential unless you are a pure h2o ice crystal located north of 80 degrees latitude.
The Met Office always knows… after the facts as their prediction for September was spot… off. LOL
Who are you gonna believe? The Met Office…. or your lyin’ eyes?
But CO2 levels have continued to rise in the last 16 years – so temperatures must have risen – this means that the adjustments to the raw data simply need to be re-corrected.
(Contribution from the Lewandowsky-Jones school of cognitive logic and Excel tutoring, Western Australia & Eastern Anglia, ‘green consultancy work and payola are our specialty’).
in case barry woods is about the place!
re nick palmer and the “denialist” comments on the Met Office page, note:
Palmer: “People here who confuse the accumulating warming due to extra greenhouse gases with the temperature records are like those in a place like Jersey, (which has up to a 40 foot tidal range) confusing waves with the incoming tide…”
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
Aug 2011: Jersey Evening Post: Nick Palmer. Jersey Climate Action Network: Beware the arguments which contradict the work that is done on climate science
Palmer in the Comments: It was the scientific method that proved that the earth was round and that it went round the Sun. You seem to think that what the popular “commonsense” view at the time was, was the scientific view. This type of distorted presentation of the facts is very characteristic of the junk-think of denialists. They are really unbearably thick and over-confident in their belief in their own abilities. Don’t listen to them. They are mad, bad and dangerous to know
http://www.thisisjersey.com/latest/2011/08/03/beware-the-arguments-which-contradict-the-work-that-is-done-on-climate-science/
Skeptical Science: Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Posted on 1 July 2012 by Glenn Tamblyn
Few people have received more vitriol and unjustified abuse than Dr. Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, but until recently few of us knew just how vile the threats and malice had been…
So the Author Team at Skeptical Science would like to offer Phil Jones all the moral and emotional support we can (and all his colleagues who may have experienced similar abuse). To this end we will shortly be sending Phil a letter of support from all of us here at SkS.
An Invitation to Our Readership
If you want to add your name to this letter, please do so by indicating your willingness by a simple entry in the comments section of this post (your name and country will suffice)…
The text of the letter will be as follows…
Comments 251 to 300 out of 328…
280. Nick Palmer at 03:09 AM on 4 July, 2012
Jersey, Channel Islands …
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=6&t=328&&n=1506
The Met Office’s reply has been met with a stinging reply.
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-mail-on-sunday-and-the-met-office/
No more adjustments available, too many people watching..
Urban areas have swallowed most of the land thermometers that can be swallowed.
They have got rid of most of the rural ones and remote one. where did they all go ??
Of course the calculated urban land temp has leveled off.
Now watch it start dropping over the next few years, and not even GISS or HADCRUD will be able to stop it.
as for Jeff Gazzard, Aviation Environment Federation, who comments on the Met Office page:
“Dear Dave Britton and all colleagues at the Met Office: I’ll keep this simple – please keep up the good work! Those of us at the environment lobbying/campaigning coalface (whoops!) really appreciate your applied meteorological science and these good-humoured responses to Mr Rose and his acolytes witterings.”
16 May 2012: Air Transport World: EU: Chinese, Indian airlines fail to comply with ETS
COMMENT by Jeff Gazzard Aviation Environment Federation
So from the grandiose “coalition of the unwilling”, the more-than-20 countries who seemingly signed up in Moscow and then New Delhi a couple of months ago to fight the EU aviation ETS, there are now 2 entirely predictable refuseniks: China and India. Today there are just 10 airlines from these 2 states representing less than 3% of total aviation emissions. So the bottom line is more than 1,200 airlines from all other countries except China and India have complied. I believe this is a significant and successful outcome by any standard.
I look forward to sanctions being applied to Chinese and Indian airlines for any continued non-compliance: the respective EU member state regulators will have our support 100% if and when penalties become necessary.
COMMENT BY ANONYMOUS:
Has anyone noticed that each and every article about the ETS by ATW, Jeffrey is always the first to comment? I think he is getting a kickback from ATW to start the debate by expressing a very arrogant and self righteous position. It would appear he is informed of the article before it is released. Anyone agree with this observation?
COMMENT BY JEFF GAZZARD: Not so, I’m afraid. No kickbacks from ATW – as a reputable journal they wouldn’t offer them and I certainly wouldn’t accept. What a really odd thing to say! Secondly, my ability to comment fast is a trade secret…
http://atwonline.com/operations-maintenance/news/eu-chinese-indian-airlines-fail-comply-ets-0515
saudi arabia can now be added to the countries mentioned below, so Gazzard has a lot of countries to sanction:
26 Sept: Business Aviaton Law Blog:
Last week, the National Business Aviation Association (“NBAA”) continued its support for increased pressure and direct measures that would curb efforts of the European Union to include the U.S. aviation sector in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (“EU-ETS”). The NBAA joined forces with 18 other aviation-related associations in an advocacy coalition…
2 Aug:
The United States Departments of State and Transportation hosted 16 countries from July 31 to August 1, 2012 to discuss alternatives to the controversial scheme. Countries participating were Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates…
This meeting follows a February gathering in Moscow of 20 countries which agreed on retaliatory measures if the EU-ETS’s inclusion of non-EU aircraft continues moving ahead…
http://www.businessaviationlawblog.com/tags/euets/
This appears to be one of the ten most dishonest reports ever issued by the Met. And I would bet if we ranked their reports from most to least dishonest the top ten would fill the current decade.
I followed the link to the hadcrut4 site. Itz worth it to take a look at the global anomaly map. I was very surprised at how much area actually has negative anomalies in comparison to the 1961 to 1990 reference period. Mostly in the oceans. On the other hand most of Africa and Siberia have no data at all and appear to be adjacent to (in part anyway) in low or negative anomaly areas.
the third defender of the Met using “denial” is julesbollocks:
“David Rose as part of the denial-sphere is becoming increasingly irreverent”
two links on the following page from julesbollocks, one on christopher booker, the other on andrew montford. both links take u to the website: “the climate deniers list”:
Christopher Booker
julesbollocks wrote 3 weeks ago: Christopher Booker- journalist [although that is being kind, opinionated would be more accurate. Wri … more
Andrew William Montford
julesbollocks wrote 7 months ago: Andrew William Montford is an English writer and editor who is the owner of the Bishop Hill blog He … more
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/jounalist/
I think the first scalp has been taken.
The revelation came moments after Mr. McGuinty said he had asked the Lieutenant-Governor to prorogue Parliament amid continuing fallout from a scandal over the politically motivated cancellation of two power plants…
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/15/its-time-for-renewal-dalton-mcguinty-shocks-queens-park-with-surprise-resignation/
Intersting that they talk about the PDO and AMDO, whereas most other alarmists simply ignore them, such as the Australian Academy of Science in its reponse to Plimer’s latest book-How to get expelled from school. Makes interesting reading as the current state of the consensus.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/understanding-climate-change/response-to-prof-plimer.aspx
Steve C says
“With more, let’s say independent forecasters inclining to the view that temps are about to head downhill over the next decade or two, ”
This view is rapidly becoming the consensus view.It’s amazing that even the IPCC has finally been forced to pay attention to the real world. The most important thing they say in their 2011 SREX report is
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.
Note uncertainty in the “sign” means they think the earth may even be cooling- but they still shy away from using the c word. In this SREX report they recognised that they could no longer scaremonger on the basis of the trend and so in that report and in the forthcoming AR5 they have chosen to concentrate on “extreme” events to promote their scaremongering anti CO2 policy propaganda.The core alarmists Hansen, Mann Trenberth McKibben and Romm and their female acolytes and the ecoleft media propagandists are simply following the IPCC script with their ever more hysterical predictions of future extreme disasters even as the real earth obstinately refuses to warm up.
Or you could apply an ounce of common sense. If you are interested in the warming/cooling trend plot the rate of change, not the damned temperature or anomaly! If you think that climate change is defined by some particular period, plot a moving average on that basis. Now you have a signal of your chosen resolution and can see what is actually happening. No linear trends, no silly arguments about start and stop points to hide behind.
Fine, so we’ll use 15 years then. Here’s your 15-year signal:
http://postimage.org/image/q67lzv253/full
And what do we see? On this basis warming started to decelerate in 1995 or so, gathering pace from about 2003. But we can’t see beyond 2005 so let’s switch to the annual signal:
http://postimage.org/image/lllfkxifr/full
But now we see all the noise from which you are disingenuously trying to show CAGW exists. So just for fun, let’s blow up that 72-month smoothed annual signal line and take a peek at that:
http://postimage.org/image/3k6w0vdsn/full
Pretty much the same thing, yes? But now we can see up to 2009 and that net cooling appears to have kicked in somewhere around 2007.
Finally, here are the raw year-on-year monthly deltas since 1970:
http://postimage.org/image/8wvqf01p3/full
Please explain why anyone should contribute one penny in taxes to fund the sheer stupidity of trying to discriminate a 15 year or longer signal from this level of noise that is an order of magnitude smaller than your ability to take a temperature reading, let alone fudge up some putative global average temperature to three decimal places. Someone somewhere really needs to get a grip on the purse strings.
Like Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot they’re now stuck waiting vainly for the warming to return. They’re sure it’s coming, if not today then tomorrow, if not this year then the next.
Jimbo says:
October 15, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“. . . the IPCC and the WMO use 30 years or more of weather data to define climate.”
The last word here should be normal.
The original purpose had nothing to do with the issue of climate change as that phrase is currently used. “Normal” was a number used to give folks a reference with which to compare the day’s weather in their local area.
“Climate” was understood to be a complex pattern of seasonal variables as described in the Köppen-Geiger system that early on included vegetation boundaries (involving costly and time intensive field work). Note in the map at the following link, the period was from 1951 – 2000.
http://www.holtz.org/Library/Images/Slideshows/Gallery/Maps/Koppen-Geiger%20climates.gif
Ric Werme says:
October 15, 2012 at 3:04 pm
“. . . El Niño. I don’t have time to dig up the definition, ”
Here is the pdf form:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Definitions are on page 21.
Jim McCulley says:
October 15, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Jim provides a link to one of the most error-filled essays anyone can find. Please Jim, when linking to this sort of bs, give us a hint as there are better things to spend time reading.
Personally I was wondering what happened to 1940 – records from the Battle of Britain indicate that it was an unusually long and hot summer and it was this that the Germans took advantage of to extend the battle as long as they did. According to the “new think” 1940 was not unusual at all – perhaps the whole thing is a figment of my imagination, perhaps there was no Battle of Britain, perhaps there was no Dunkirk (also unusual weather) perhpas there was no D-Day (also unusual weather), perhaps the whole thing never happened. Now who’s denying!
climatereason
The MO may use 0.2’C officially as the value of UHI, but in the UK TV weather forecast the assumed value is 3-4’C. The phrase “but 3′ coder in rural areas” is used all the time together with “much colder in rural areas”. Perhaps TV weather girls- sorry persons have a better idea of UHI thate the MO?
Goldie
re-writing weather history, I beleive that the winters after 1940 were cold, 1944 (Battle of the Bulge) certainly was and I think 1941-42 and of course 1947 which wasn’t equalled in the UK until 1963.
Oops, cocked up the anomaly plot on the deltas. Big oil cheque just arrived so here’s a refresh 😉 … http://postimage.org/image/pzp6kgzkj/full
Does the word “warming” have the same meaning in GB?
Where I come from warming means the temp is slowly rising. If the temp is staying the same we say it is “still warm” “maintaining temp” “leveled out” but never warming.
To even make the statement that 8 out of 10 are the warmest is utterly misleading and bereft of basic intellectual honesty.
The theory being discessued iis global warming, not global staying warm.
SandyInLimousin says, October 15, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Sorry, didn’t you know? Rock and Roll just got backdated. Elvis really has left the building.
http://postimage.org/image/i3icj28u1/full
Noise? What noise? Sorry, can’t hear you. Can you speak up? No. Sorry call back later.
If CO2 were the main forcer, the temp would track the CO2 level. And if for some reason the temp were to lag, like 1945-1770 or the current slump, the temp would race to regain the proper relation to the CO2 curve. Instead, the slumps seem to be cumulative.
Conclusion? Something else is at work here, and whatever it is, there seems to be a 30-year cycle.
Of course, the temp period I had in mind was 1945-1970. My bad
Argument “but our models show there is possibility for lull in warming up to 10-15 years” is pure BS: where it is? In the CMIP3 model ensemble mean it is not.
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/310249/global1900.jpg
WHERE IT IS???
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/310249/global2001.jpg
One has to look at the time scales to assess whether the climates temperature is increasing or decreasing. Climate is an average of the observed weather over a period of 30 years. Therefore one cannot make a statement that the climate has not increased or is leveling over a 15 year period. If this phenomenon persists for the next 15 years then one can say that the new climate regime will be of a higher average temperature than that experienced in the past, due to the fact that over the past two decades the observed temperatures have been higher than the norm. The reason why climate is assessed over a longer time period than 15 years is to account for the climate variations as well as the ocean-atmosphere coupling that have an effect on the weather experienced on a yearly basis. However, one cannot ignore that fact that the observed climate over the past couple of decades (30 years or longer) has not shown a stable climate variation around a “norm” and therefore the average climate for the current period cannot be estimated or stated to be “ leveling”.
“One has to look at the time scales to assess whether the climates temperature is increasing or decreasing. Climate is an average of the observed weather over a period of 30 years. Therefore one cannot make a statement that the climate has not increased or is leveling over a 15 year period. If this phenomenon persists for the next 15 years then one can say that the new climate regime will be of a higher average temperature than that experienced in the past, due to the fact that over the past two decades the observed temperatures have been higher than the norm. The reason why climate is assessed over a longer time period than 15 years is to account for the climate variations as well as the ocean-atmosphere coupling that have an effect on the weather experienced on a yearly basis. However, one cannot ignore that fact that the observed climate over the past couple of decades (30 years or longer) has not shown a stable climate variation around a “norm” and therefore the average climate for the current period cannot be estimated or stated to be “ leveling”.”
The problem with this analysis is that science is not that simple. If one is a particle physicist one can say that the probability of finding a particle is one in a million type interactions. Scientists then do millions and if they see a normal distribution around a million per instance they can say their predfiction has merit. Climate science has no repeatability. All the data in the past is suspect or error prone. No matter what reasonable time period chosen we can’t be certain that any prediction by itself says anything about how good our theory is. Also, it is awfully convenient for the theorizers to say that to “disprove” their theory we need 30 more years of data. That’s not the way REAL science works. Real science would say you haven’t proven anything until 30 years has passed, maybe 60 or 90 or 120 years so the experiment can be repeated and repeated. In a situation like this scientists need to find analogues to the 30 year problem. Fortunately there are some simple tests. The law of conservation of energy is an immutable law of physics. Every instant (not every 30 years) energy must be conserved. If the theory of AGW cannot ascribe where the heat went even if not into surface temperatures but can show how it shows the energy must go into oceans or under land or escape into space or go one place or another and we find that energy there then we know that at least the theory is internally consistent. Maybe temperatures on the surface aren’t going up. The AGW theory has to be able to explain where the heat went and we should be able to measure it. This will eliminate the problem with weather vs climate. If the theory accurately predicts the quantity and place that the heat can go and why then it is on much stronger ground. Unfortunately to my knowledge this is now the biggest problem. The lack of heating of the surface is trivial problem compared to the missing heat problem. Without explaining that AGW is not a consistent complete theory that could possibly be ascribed any merit whatsoever other than as a passing idea some people have. I believe that every scientist in the world would have to agree 100% with me on all of what I have stated here and if anyone has a clue how the models or the theory shows where the heat went you can write mr Hansen because he himself has not been able to explain it. He tried to show some of it went into the ocean. He got much less than half the energy accounted through some pretty questionable and error prone measurements. We don’t have to wait 30 years or 1 more year. Until the AGW folks can exaplin where all this heat over the last 16 years that is supposed to be created by all the feedbacks and co2 that we pour into the atmosphere then the theory is as good as dead on arrival.
Just a thought:
At October 16, 2012 at 6:30 am you say
NO! That is plain wrong, and the remainder of your post is based on it so is also wrong.
A ‘climate normal period’ has 30 years duration. A climate datum can be provided for any period if the length of the period is stated.
A climate datum is compared to a mean of similar data from a 30-year period that has been chosen as a ‘climate normal period’. So, for example, global temperature data are reported as “anomalies” (i.e. differences) from the average global temperature of a 30-year period chosen as the ‘climate normal period’. But the providers of the global temperature data sets (e.g. GHCN, HadCRUT, etc) each use different start and end years for their individual ‘climate normal period’.
The 30-year duration of climate normals was decided in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY). This duration was an arbitrary decision based on the general agreement that only 30 years of reliable climate data then existed.
The arbitrary 30-year length of climate normals is unfortunate for several reasons. For example, 30 years is not a multiple of the 11-year solar cycle, or the 22-year Hale cycle, or etc..
But a climate datum can be of any duration provided its start and end dates are stated. For example, the global temperature data are stated for individual years. And the 1994 IPCC Report used a series of 4-year periods to compare hurricane frequency. Indeed, the duration of the entire Holocene is often compared to the climates of earlier geological epochs.
The importance of the recent 15 year period is what it indicates concerning the validity of climate science as reported by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The 1997 UN IPCC AR4 Report predicted (n.b. predicted not projected) that global temperature would rise over the first two decades after 2000 at an average rate of 0.2deg.C/decade +/-20%. This rise was certain because it was “committed warming” which the climate models said must occur as a result of anthropogenic GHG emissions already in the system.
The IPCC prediction can be seen at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-4.html
In the graph the orange line represents the “committed” temperature increase the IPCC said would occur after 2000 if there were no additional CO2. Clearly, actual temps from 2000 until now are lower than the projected “committed” warming while CO2 levels have continued to rise.
There are only four possible meanings of the flat-line in global temperatures over the last 15 years; i.e.
1. The models are wrong.
Or
2. The global temperature estimates are wrong.
Or
3. Natural climate variation is sufficient to overwhelm anthropogenic warming.
Or
4. Some or all of the possibilities 1 to 3.
Richard
It’s even worse than what you say. Any climate theory I postulate may not be able to predict what the temperature at any time T is. However, if the temperature at time T for a period of substantial duration is different than the predicted value then the theory must explain why. If scientists say, a ball must have uniform motion, then if the ball doesn’t have uniform motion the science must be able to explain why, for instance the ball had resistance from X. If the temperature is not what the models say there should be an explanation. We shouldn’t get blank stares, “JUST BELIEVE US, IT”S COMING.” That’s NOT how science works. If the temperature is not what it is today they must be able to explain why it is deviating, at least qualitatively if not directly. They must be able to say, oh well, that’s possible if the oceans have cyclic patterns A and B. Without being able to explain at least qualitatively the motions and cycles and roughly WHY this is happening that we have 16 years of non-conformance with the CO2 heat that is supposed to be generating massive amounts of additional energy in the atmosphere then they must have a theory what IS GOING ON. If not, then why should we believe ANYTHING they say? That is for religion to say things like “Believe us”. It is for religion to say things like we don’t know why your father was murdered but he went to heaven. It is for science to say well, your father was murdered and here is the bullet and sorry we didn’t see it coming. The models must at least explain qualitatively why there is a 16 year haitus in temperatures. They cannot simply ignore it and say “don’t know what that is about but don’t worry, it will all come together soon.” That’s not science. That’s religion. Scientists should be saying, well it’s likely there is some cyclic thing going on with ocean currents we didn’t know about. Factoring that into our models we see that well, we overestimated the rate of temperature rising in the 1970-1999 period and therefore we may have overestimated the sensitivity of the atmosphere to CO2. A scientist would have to say that at the minimum “The fact that the data has not conformed to the theory for 16 years” reduces the probability our models are correct. It reduces the certainty that we stated earlier. That’s the minimum that can be said as a scientist. As a politician they can say anyhting they want. They can say the case is stronger than ever. However, scientists have to have a higher calling. We have to be able to call a spade a spade and if we run 4 billion experiments looking for a partical we expect to find in 1 billion interactions we can say that the theory hasn’t been disproven but we have to say it is not looking good for the theory. We have to say the probability the theory is correct is declining.
So what their saying is the last 16 years are the hottest on record.
This does not contradict the fact that there has been no warming for 16 years.
Seems the 1930’s got adjusted, just amazing !!!
I have a suggestion for the next cartoon: have you seen the episode of the “Modern Family”
where the kids surprised the parents, and little girl running down to the kitchen sink trying to wash the image out of her mind….. the cartoon should be Al Gore try to do the same after he saw the chart of no warming….. LOL
To those that claim that 1934 was the hottest year on record please be aware that the “record” high temperature at the time was only for the US. The global temperature for that year was the 49th on record (as of the end of 2011).
[snip . . OT . . post in Tips & Notes instead, thanks . . mod]
richardscourtney says:
October 16, 2012 at 7:37 am
“The 30-year duration of climate normals was decided in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY).”
Yes, but there is additional history (back to 1935) to what you have written. Rather than repeat, see my comment here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/24/a-different-take-on-the-hottest-month-on-record/#comment-1064676
John F. Hultquist:
re your post addressed to me at October 16, 2012 at 10:00 pm.
Yes. Thankyou.
Richard
“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.”
They didn’t have anything to say about this while the warming trend was accelerating.
The appeal to various and vaguely specified natural forcings interfering with the CO2 signal would be more persuasive if any such effects, and their specific causes, had been forecast, and quantified even roughly. They were not. Which puts “paid” to the claim of having examined and ruled out the influence of such forcings in the past. Which renders the “remnant CO2 explanation” null and void.
there are now more comments on the Met Office response page:
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
but all sane comments/questions are interspersed with multiple links to skepticalscience including skepticalscience /nuccitelli, or denierslist, or insults about sceptics having connections to coal & similar by a John Havery Samuel:
a lot can be learned about john amongst the following tweets, tho nothing scientific:
John Havery Samuel
http://twitter.com/_jsam
2 days from the DM article for the Guardian to come up with this? what a surprise?
16 Oct: Guardian: Dana Nuccitelli for Skeptical Science: Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped
Newspaper’s claim that ‘world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago’ is simply wrong, says Met Office
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong?newsfeed=true
16 Oct: Western Morning News, Cornwall UK: Met Office denies claims that latest data shows global warming slowdown
Reports suggesting that global warming stopped 16 years ago are “misleading”, the Met Office said yesterday.
It had been claimed that the Exeter-based Met Office “quietly released” figures which showed little rise in aggregate global temperatures from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012…
(Met Office spokesman) “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…
“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.”
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Met-Office-denies-claims-latest-data-shows-global/story-17088587-detail/story.html
so how did the Western Morning News come up with that headline?
John and Richard
I read John’s interesting link and by coincidence about three years ago i wrote something similar. I reproduce it below as it helps to put evolving climate into perspective.
“As I don’t like the concept of ‘global temperatures I tend to use national temperature data sets-the older the better. The Dutch ones go back (sporadically) about as far as CET. (Hubert Lamb –first director of CRU-stated that CET was a very good indicator for NH/‘global’ temperatures.)
I thought it would be an interesting exercise to try and smooth out the short term temperature trends that will make someone in their 30’s today say-‘it’s got warmer in my lifetime’- a point which their great grandparents might disagree with, having lived through the 1920’s and 30’s
Consequently I decided to see what temperature a person living a three score year and ten life span in England would experience (using CET to 1660)
This table is based on the average annual mean temperature enjoyed by the ‘British Everyman’ through each year of each decade. This assumed he was born at the start of a decade and died the last year of the decade seventy years later. These are the calculations;
Someone born in Britain in 1660 and living to 70- Average annual temp 8.87c
Someone born in 1670 and living to 70 Average annual temp 8.98
1680 9.01
1690 9.05
1700 9.19
1710 9.21
1720 9.17
1730 9.14
1740 9.04
1750 9.03
1760 9.08
1770 9.10
1780 9.07
1790 9.12
1800 9.15
1810 9.13
1820 9.14
1830 9.12
1840 9.10
1850 9.14 (Start of the Hadley global temperatures)
1860 9.17
1870 9.21
1880 9.30 Official end of the Little Ice Age-Start of GISS
1890 9.39
1900 9.40
1910 9.46
1920 9.497
1930 9.60
1940 9.70 (projected to 2009)
1950 9.76 Extrapolating current trends
1960 9.79 Using advanced modelling techniques.
I called the people born in the period from 1660 to 1880 ‘LIA Everyman’ in as much the person lived part or all of their lives during the little ice age. Those born born from 1890 to the present day I have termed ‘UHI Everyman’ for obvious reasons. No adjustments have been made to correct UHI, poor siting, change of instruments etc.
The depths of the LIA can be clearly seen, but what I find interesting is that temperatures have risen only some 0.6 degree C since the warmest period of the LIA, which does not suggest a runaway climate change scenario to me.
(The slightly cooler average temperatures in the LIA are primarily due to colder winters – summers were pretty similar)
Of course, were it possible, it would be most interesting to extrapolate this back to the MWP and Roman optimums, as it would put today’s very modest rises into a proper perspective.”
Of course since this piece was written there has been a downrurn in CET so the extrapolations would come down somewhat.
it would be interesting if anyone else living in a country with long records-Holland, Denmark, Sweden etc, would care to compile a similar chart on the same basis, that smooths out the short term noise.
Tonyb
(2 Pages) 17 Oct: Charleston Daily Mail: Dan Surber: The globe actually hasn’t been warming?
The British say temperatures have not risen in 16 years
GOOD news. Global warming ended 16 years ago, according to the Met Office, the British government’s weather department…
Climategate should have ended this nonsense.
Unfortunately, the media ignored its implications because most “environmental reporters” are true believers who spread their opinions in articles disguised as news reports.
For years I have opined, in clearly marked opinion columns, that weather is cyclical and what man knows about the causes and effects of it could fit in a thimble…
So it goes with global warming. Questioning the science – being skeptical – results in being labeled anti-science.To be sure, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and it can help the Earth trap heat.
But there are so many other variables when it comes to weather that it would be irresponsible to shut down coal plants simply out of fear of carbon dioxide releases…
Sir James Lovelock was the first to signal the global warming alarm back in the 1970s when fears of global cooling were en vogue.
Now 92, he is surprised to see that none of his predictions of gloom and doom came true, but he is philosophic about this outcome.
“One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything,” Lovelock told the Toronto Sun this summer.
“You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
Exactly.
The good news is once again, the sins of man will not end the world. The bad news is the charlatans who pushed this stuff will never be punished.
Come to think of it, they never did find the tailors who sold that poor emperor those “new clothes.”
http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/DonSurber/201210160177
no surprise here, MSNBC/Wynne Parry’s climate scientistS (plural) = Michael Mann.
read the rest if u can bear it:
16 Oct: MSNBC: Wynne Parry: Did Global Warming Really Stop in 1997?
Claims global warming stopped 15 years ago are based on “cherry-picked” data and don’t account for natural fluctuations in climate, according to climate scientists responding to an article that appeared Saturday (Oct. 13) in the British newspaper, The Daily Mail…
The Met Office has issued a response to the article. It does not dispute the trend Rose identifies, but says Rose’s article contains “some misleading information.”
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, called the latest story “just more dishonest cherry-picking and sleight of hand by Rose” and his go-to sources.
“This is just one in a continuing series of hit pieces by David Rose in The Daily Mail that completely misrepresents climate science and climate scientists. Global warming hasn’t stopped by any objective measure; it is proceeding right on schedule. In many respects (e.g. the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice this summer), it is well ahead of schedule,” Mann told LiveScience in an email. [ 8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World ] …
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49434848/ns/us_news-environment/
16 Oct: Sun News Network Canada: Lorrie Goldstein: Climate data feeling the heat
Journalist David Rose argued it showed there has been no appreciable rise in global temperatures for almost 16 years, from early 1997 until August 2012.
He added that’s the same length of time global temperatures rose from 1980 to 1996 after being relatively stable, or slightly in decline, for 40 years prior to that.
(Recall the brief global cooling scare of the 1970s.)
So, does this prove the theory of man-made global warming – that global temperatures rise in lockstep with increasing man-made industrial carbon dioxide emissions – is a hoax?
No. The Met certainly didn’t say that…
Rose had criticized the Met for releasing the 2012 data “quietly on the Internet, without any media fanfare” in “sharp contrast” to its actions six months earlier when it released data up to the end of 2010, a very warm year, thus showing “a slight warming trend.”
What this shows is how politicized even the release of basic climate data has become.
Rose didn’t deny global warming exists…
Further, the theory there’s been a pause or hiatus in global warming – which early climate models failed to predict because they weren’t programmed to take into account natural factors affecting climate such as the sun and ocean currents – isn’t new.
As I reported in May 2008, for example, German climate scientists with the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences theorized at that time in a paper published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature that global warming had temporarily stopped due to the influence of ocean currents. They predicted global temperatures would not start rising again until at least 2015, when the underlying man-made warming would re-appear.
One problem with determining whether the Earth is warming is that it’s hard to measure…
Problem is, there are huge policy implications for the public right now if it turns out natural factors are having a greater influence on climate than previously believed.
This would call into question the value of government carbon pricing schemes such as cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, as well as the massive public subsidization of green energy.
Particularly since to date, none of them has significantly lowered greenhouse gas emissions, much less cooled the planet.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/10/20121016-085209.html
revkin is otherwise occupied so don’t expect a Met Office response from him:
16 Oct: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: A U.N. Discussion Seeks a New Set of Global Goals
Here’s the Twitter flow around a special session I’ve been running this morning at the United Nations, called Conceptualizing a Set of Sustainable Development Goals:..
COMMENT: Mike Mangan: I’m opposed to anything built on a sentence that contains both “conceptualize” and “sustainability.” It just begs parody and mockery. Sorry.
COMMENT: wmar: (anti-UN comment includes) How do we get the UN out from the climate discussion, so it might be conducted based in science? …
COMMENTS: Revkin: Despite the many deep flaws, I see the United Nations as a vital enterprise. Looking out at representatives of Latvia sitting elbow to elbow with those from Laos, as I got to do today, you get an extraordinary view of an incredibly challenging effort to build a constructive global conversation. A world without it would be worse off. Just my view.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/a-u-n-discussion-seeks-a-new-set-of-global-goals/#postComment
UN: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform: Conceptualizing a Set of Sustainable Development Goals – A Special Event of the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly
ECOSOC Chamber, North Lawn Building, New York
The UN General Assembly will on 16 October 2012 hold a special event in order to provide an initial opportunity for all member states and other participants to engage in discussions on how to develop the SDGs, in light of the relevant terms agreed within the Rio+20 outcome document…
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgsevent.html
And so it begins. Past time, too.
“And many of the highest points on a sine-wave, will be near the crest of the wave. ”
OK, what does a sine wave have to do with the effect of greenhouse gases?
Clue: Nothing. You are using math which does not apply to the real world in the way you would wish.
So many strong opinions from people who don’t know their laws of thermodynamics from a hole in the ground.
Why is it that Rose has chosen denigrate the work of the scientists involved in ‘climategate’, and at the same time is relying solely on their data in an attempt invalidate..what, radiative physics? There are other sets of data around.
Anyway, here is what the bigger picture looks like:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/pmod/scale:0.2/offset:-273.6/plot/gistemp/from:1995/trend/plot/pmod/from:1986/scale:0.2/offset:-273.6/trend