The BBC posted a surprising story this past weekend that has skeptics cheering and alarmists hopping mad.
Here’s the opener:
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
The headline?
What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth’s warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists’ main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. “Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity,” said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Read the complete story here at the BBC
LarryOldtimer (08:28:28) :
Building up a scare generates a lot of viewers. Now, debunking the scare will also generate a lot of viewers. The higher the viewership, the more money is made from advertisements. Follow the money.
Larry, the BBC does not carry advertisements. We pay an annual licence fee.
At the time of this comment’s posting the “What happened to global warming?” story is number 1 as “Most Shared”, number 6 as “Most Read” since the story was published on FRIDAY, 9 October 2009.
I meant to add on the BBC website.
” SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance ” by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, will be published Oct 20 — Now on Amazon for pre-order. In case you don’t know, Steven Levitt was quoted approvingly by liberals two years ago when he published a best seller — Freakonomics. Given the review Sunday in the Times on line he is going to knock the science and empirical evidence behind AGW. He comes from a verg rigorous theoretical and empirical economics background and isclosely allied with the Chicago School of economics. This will create a huge stir in the AGW group as many of them are fans of Levitt. I expect that this will cause Kerry and Boxer hearburns.
Can someone please enlighten me as to why RealClimate is showing an upward trend for the last 10 years? I’m sure this has been addressed here but I’ve missed it apparently. Is the GISS data flawed?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
Even the highly “cherry-picked” 11-year period starting with the warm 1998 and ending with the cold 2008 still shows a warming trend of 0.11 ºC per decade (which may surprise some lay people who tend to connect the end points, rather than include all ten data points into a proper trend calculation)
@ur momisugly Gene Nemetz (06:36:43) :
Gene wrote:
“There’s been plenty of talk about Piers Corbyn at this blog. There’s one name here in particular that seems to hate him. I’ll leave him unnamed. But he is a common commenter and some times poster here. Maybe some commenters here don’t like to bring up Piers Corbyn because this certain person will jump all over them relentlessly.”
Let’s not beat around the bush, shall we.
I suspect you are referring to Dr. Leif Svalgaard (I could be wrong, but the profile fits the suspect).
Why?
Because of statements like this (as quoted from the instant BBC article):
He [Piers Corbyn] claims that solar charged particles [electrons and ions] impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.”
Yes, Dr. Leif Svaalgaard has been relentless in attacking the idea that solar maximums and minimums (the sunspot cycle) has an impact on climate change.
Dr. Svalgaard is in denial along with the rest of “modern” astronomy about the role of electromagnetism in space processes and structures, both small and large, near and far.
So-called “modern” astronomy has been clinging to an antiquated gravity “only” cosmology inspite of consistent reports of scientific observations & measurements that demomstrate the significant, if not dominate role of electromagnetism in space.
In other words, Dr Svalgaard is the public face of authority for that particluar group-think on this website.
The story was top of the list for most shared and most read up to today. Fallen back a bit but its still near the top.
The last paragraph in my last post was a quote from the article on RealClimate – not mine. I’m a newbie here and haven’t figured out how to italicize quotes.
[To italicize: <i> To end italicized sentence: </i> ~dbstealey, moderator]
Hey everyone,
Like the the site.
Here’s an article that might be of some interest to you:
“50 reasons Obama should NOT have won the Nobel”
http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize-hell_10.html
Everything is very well-hyperlinked.
Thanks.
Josh
Daniel Cressey on ‘The Great Beyond’ blog (Nature Magazine) seems to be somewhat upset about the BBC article and Damien Thompson of the Daily Telegraph daring to report on it.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013303/nature-attacks-the-bbc-for-its-u-turn-over-climate-change/
Daniels Blog is here and as he holds up RC as an honest broker as to why AGW has not stopped perhaps some WUWT readers may wish to add their pennies worth!
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/10/climate_sceptics_celebrate_bbc.html
Exellent article on cherry picking temperature trends on Dr. Pielke jr site: listed in sidebar. It made me laugh out loud.
Kindest Regards
@Mike Lewis (10:42:07)…
see http://masterresource.org/?p=5240 , to see how to create your desired trends. It’s pretty interesting. (or Pielke jrs site works too)
I thought the warmest year on record was 1934
Thanks everyone. Found the report about GISS data coming from airports – mostly. Not surprising that the numbers are skewed.
I suppose climate scientists have some fancy algorithms to perfectly filter out the UHI component?
Aaron W. (11:53:24):
“I thought the warmest year on record was 1934”
It was, in the United States. The global temp record is what they’re referring to.
Alan the Brit (01:56:54) : As for those Greenpeace %$&£*ts …sitting on the roof of the Houses of Parliament
Funny thing is, it was one of that kind who turned me round from warmist to skeptic. Peter Taylor. He climbed Big Ben for Greenpeace.
Pete (02:07:53) : Ironically, I became interested in “global warming” because of Paul Hudson.
From the Daily Telegraph: Some reader comments on the BBC’s website said the broadcaster had made a “U-turn” over its readiness to acknowledge the views of scientists who believe cooling is here to stay. However the BBC said: “We have always reported a range of views and this article is no different.
From the BBC report “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel – Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century”… ‘There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening and that it is at least predominantly man-made… the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.
From the DT Blogs man Damian Thompson Hudson’s piece must have been a nightmare to write: talk about an inconvenient truth. All the caveats are in place, distancing him from hardline sceptics and giving plenty of space to the climate change orthodoxy. But, in fact, his scrupulous approach only makes matters worse for BBC executives who have swung the might of the corporation behind that orthodoxy, often producing what amounts to propaganda. The BBC now has serious questions to answer. It has used millions of pounds of licence-payers’ money to advance a simplistic point of view that is beginning to fall apart under scrutiny…
LarryOldtimer (08:28:28) : Building up a scare generates a lot of viewers. Now, debunking the scare will also generate a lot of viewers.
You never know how things will turn out in the end.
The BBC only allowed that article to be printed so that they could increase their audience. Always follow the money! If the BBC wasn’t losing money hand over fist, they would never have run that story. It is their deparate attempt to increase their earnings.
Orthodoxy has nothing to do with true science. When do I get my tax money back from the BBC.
With so many newpapers in financial difficulty, it is unbelievable that more of them do not print more articles that question the AGW religion. It would surely increase their circulation and improve their finances. I guess their political leanings are more important to them than continuing their existance.
ajones, does the silencing of dissent not frighten you in any way? Same question for RRKampen. You both seem reasonably intelligent and are aware of the result of the elimination of freedom of speech throughout history. Please do not deny that dissenters have been muzzled. I will shout from the rooftops that no one, and I mean no one is able to show that we are outside natural variations in the climate. What is it that is hoped to be achieved by the silencing of dissent, other than control of the people? History shows what comes next. Again, does the silencing of dissent not set off alarm bells with you?
The lunchtime Vine program on BBC Radio 2 has held a debate between two listeners and Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre. I guess he wasn’t brave enough to debate any experts. Even so the listeners who rang in after the debate all thought AGW was a con.
My attention was drawn to this BBC piece… literally as I was preparing a talk on “An Alternative View to Climate Change”.
Talk about gift from the gods. Made me feel like Darwin’s bulldog Huxley…
“Soapy Sam” Bishop Wilberforce is supposed to have asked Huxley sarcastically whether “it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey.” Huxley supposedly whispered an aside to Sir Benjamin Brodie, “the Lord hath delivered him into my hand,” and then responded, “If then the question is put to me whether I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.”
Aaron W. (11:53:24) :
As has been stated, that was the US lower 48…
However, since further corrections http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif
Judge for yourself why we distrust GISS
For those unsure about the HTML, make a comment & subscribe to a thread, (by checking the [Notify me of follow-up comments by email] box). HTML code appears as typed, (at least on my googlemail account).
DaveE.
DougS (10:25:33) :
” SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance ” by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, will be published Oct 20
Brilliant. Economics has long been called the “Dismal Science” for fairly obvious reasons. Perhaps the time has come to dub Climate Science, with its notorious concealment of data, the “Other Dismal Science”.
Regards
S
???? “…the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.” ???
Wasn’t 1998 bumped to “second warmest year on record” by 1934, due to NASA’s incompetence?