Report: Global warming stopped 16 years ago

UPDATE: There’s a response from the Met Office here

A report in the UK Daily Mail reveals a Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it:

By David Rose

  • The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
  • This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29E78OR9H

h/t to reader “Dino”

regarding the significance of the period from 1997, recall that Dr. Ben Santer claimed 17 years was the period needed:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/

They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said something similar in a WUWT guest post:

There has been no warming since 1997 and no

statistically significant warming since 1995.

Bob Tisdale did a 17 and 30 year trend comparison here

Here’s the HADCRUT4 4.1.1. dataset

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Yet, Poor Phil’s co-believer, Kevin Trenberth, has no qualms whatsoever about “drawing conclusions” from a much, much shorter period. Just a few days ago Trenberth had declared:

”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said.

It would seem that in CliSci, the “correct” lapse of time from which one might draw conclusions must depend on the direction to which the “conclusions” are pointing!
Amazing. Simply amazing.

R. Shearer

“15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.” Wait til next year.

Bob Diaz

I understand the need to look at long term trends and 16 years does not fit what we might call “Long term”. If anything, the data from the last 16 years does show that the, “We must do everything today or else!!!” idea was overblown. It looks like the world didn’t end after all.

DDP

Typical Phil Jones. When you don’t get the results you expected to see, want, or need to see for future funding…move the goalposts. Wasn’t ten years enough to see a trend regarding a rise in temps, but of course he has to double down on anything else being a trend. He’s not a scientist, he’s a gambler. And a cheating one at that.

Devastating for activist “scientists” when a convenient hypothesis (based upon wishing rather than observation) is extinguished upon collision with stubborn, inconvenient facts.

AndyG55

“Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.”
And yet they drew CO2 causation conclusions much earlier in the slight URBAN warming period between 1980 – 1997..
I do wish they would stop changing their hypothesis and the rules behind it, but, well…. its all they have..! 😉

I suspect James Dellingpole will give this report a lot more attention. 🙂
Ah, HADCRUT 4. UAH shows plenty of warming since 1997, from about -0.8 to +0.34. HADCRUT doesn’t show the 1998 El Niño, how come?

mbw

Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?

Pouncer

Personally, since I regard the “annual average anomaly” as less precisely indicative as it is being reported, I also don’t much regard either trend; one that shows warming from the 1970’s thru the 1990’s or one that shows stable from the 1990’s to now.
It’s as if I’d been warned I was getting ill because my body temperature had been, this morning, rising from 98.4 F, to 99.6 F, but had lately by evening stabilized at above 98.6 F, plus or minus 0.3 F. Since I don’t regard the measurements as meaningful, I don’t regard them as having much diagnostic, or predictive, value.
Still, it’s somewhat nice to have the quacks exposed.

Scute

Anthony, that comment of Phil Jones’s sits ill with his professed 95% “standard” certainty rate as discussed in his Richard Black BBC interview of June 2011. That was when the 16th year of data since 1995 had just come in to allow him to give the 95% certainty nod to a warming trend. Now, two years later he’s hoisted on his own petard but won’t admit it. Maybe we should remind him of the interview….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

cui bono

One more year until Ben Santer has to eat crow (whatever that means).

ferdberple

“Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.”
===========
It wasn’t too short a period to draw conclusions when temp were going up, immediately on the heels of the “global cooling” scare of the 1970’s.
At one time the folks walking around proclaiming the “end of the world” were regarded as nut cases. Dressed up in lab coats and business suits, we now call them climate scientists and politicians.

Ian W

mbw says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?

nbw you should address your question to the (warmist) UK Meteorological office – it is their report.

P Wilson

too short a period to be draw conclusions?
Yet back in the antediluvian past, (2006&2007) the MET office were issuing warnings of the hottest year will be the next and the next even hotter, which will be th ehottest years in recorded history….. such is the selective nature of Phil Jones’ assessment, who is nothing more than a temperature measurer than a climatologist.
If he wants a long term trend then according to the CET we are, today, back at the temperatures during the 1690’s-1730’s, or the earlier half of the 18th century

mbw says:
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?

Not sure who you are directing that at as this is from an article in the Daily Mail ( which in the interest of fairness and honesty is one of the most politically far-right and alarmist [in many areas] tabloids in the UK ) written by David Rose based upon a quietly-released report by the UK MET office. The reason for starting at 1997 is simple. That is the point at which recent warming ( natural recovery from the LIA ) has appeared to have plateaued and that’s the assertion being made.
Sure we could start 13 years earlier and show a slight positive trend however the point being made is that it could have stopped rising before it actually starts to trend negative for a few decades. That’s a position a number of people, myself included, are adopting.
This is not to say that we won’t see warm summers again in the next few years or even warm winters. That’s the beauty of a little understood chaotic system. The smart people don’t try too hard to second-guess it.

Call me clueless but didn’t the temps on Dr. Spencer’s graph stay relatively stable from 1979 to the 1997 El Nino. Shouldn’t we wait till 18-20 years before we say the temp is stable. M
aybe wait 22 year for a full Sunspot cycle?

Skeptik

Surely we would have been told by the government and the MSM if this were true. sarc/

bushbunny

Well a few days ago they forecast that Australia was in for a sizzler summer with 4 C degree increase, etc., a few days ago we had snow in parts of Oz. There goes that assertion, some still want to believe it, and let’s face it, ABC weather forecaster suggested there was no snow on the way, although other TV stations were forecasting it. ABC is owned by the government? About 40 years ago snow arrived in Oz all along the east coast up to the Qld border. And on some higher altitudes in Qld i.e., Toowoomba. I remember I sent the cutting to my late sister-in-law in UK and said ‘See we have snow before you?’ Twenty years ago on the Northern Tablelands, we had snow just before Christmas. Thirty years ago we had snow again that even hit the lower slopes, stopped all traffic on the higher altitudes, electricity cuts for 48 hours in Moonbi, just outside Tamworth. Other unusually cold weather has caught us by surprise sometimes, killing fruit tree blossoms and usually hardier native plants. We have no control, just have to go with mother nature and feed the birds who are now hatching their babies in such cold cold conditions.

John West

There’s also been no stratospheric cooling (GHG warming fingerprint) in the last decade an a half.

commieBob

mbw says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?

If you want to say “The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago” you’re pretty much stuck with that year. 😉
The more serious answer concerns what kind of data it would take to falsify the CAGW hypothesis. ie. How many years of non-warming would it take? Dr. Ben Santer seems to think seventeen years would do it. We’re getting close. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/

GlynnMhor

The CAGW paradigm is slowly collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
The predictive value of the climate models is being shown to be laughable.
And the assumptions and hypothesizing going into those models are equally suspect.

Rex

“15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.”
Yes, and so is 100.

Rick Bradford

We seem to have reached Stage 3 of JBS Haldane’s “Four stages of acceptance”:
1. This is worthless nonsense.
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
3. This is true, but quite unimportant.
4. I always said so.

LazyTeenager

Hmm, hold on guys, isn’t this the data set you claim was faked?
Does this mean you believe it, now that is gives the answer you want?
Does this mean you no longer believe that Phil Jones is a cheat?

Steve M. from TN

But it’s the hottest year eva! (in the USA of course) /sarc

Robert

Oops….

LOADED COMMENT: ”The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures”
THE TRUTH: until 81, they were promoting Nuclear Winter for year 2000, because of the CO2 ”dimming” effect – they were ”MASSAGING” the numbers, to look as if it was getting colder until then. Otherwise, the GLOBAL temperature ”OVERALL” was same as always (prof Hubert L
2] because the countdown for year 2000 was getting closer – not to get them on their lies – they turned 180 degrees in the opposite direction / GLOBAL warming at any cost. . coincided with the falling of the Berlin Wall… the western Reds realized that: they will not concur and oppress the democratic west with Kalashnikovs – so they put a green topcoat on their original red colour, and joined the march.
3] Kyoto conference has given lots of publicity to the new Messiahs / lots of cash and power; but also the attention of the Skeptical people. For the first time the ”climatologist and their data” started to be scrutinized – therefore exuberant claims were made, but no proofs to substantiate those. So, the temperature for the last 16y didn’t plateau; overall temperature was always the same, and always will be. Since Darwin published his book – small number of opportunist started to imitate gods – they predicted since then – seven catastrophic GLOBAL warmings around the corner / six ice ages in less than 10 years, and a Nuclear Winter for year 2000. ”””Discernible, aggregate”” and similar words as: may happen, can happen, some say, it’s possible, if happens -are called: Sir Humphrey’s smokescreen / drivel
Because the ”Skeptics” have being duped by the Warmist; to believe in the phony global warmings – now they are in a psychotic research; to justify for GLOBAL warming not eventuating – Warmist are riding on the Skeptic’s ignorance. It’s galactic dust, is it ozone, it’s sunspot, it’s the seawater guilty… CANNOT FACE THE REALITY AND ADMIT THAT: THEY HAVE BEING DUPED BY BIGGER LIARS THAN THEMSELVES. CO2 emission has doubled, since they started threatening with their phony GLOBAL warming – temperature is same as always… their ”GLOBAL temperature Charts” started disappearing up the Skeptic’s butts – on which the con-artists were showing to one hundredth of a degree precision the whole ”’GLOBAL” temperature… For hundreds, and thousands of years they discovered what was the exact temperature on every spot on the planet?!?! For when the planet was still flat and long before the invention of the not reliable thermometer…. and when was only few thermometers in few capital cities only. Whatever wasn’t available – they were making it up. For example: 10y ago, nobody was aware that sunspots exist; but when powerful filter in 2005 was invented, to be able to look at the sun’s surface and see that is not a red ball… ==== the ”Skeptics” pined sunspots to every GLOBAL temperature chart – sunspots to give support for their previous lies… the nutters cannot notice anything wrong, when stated to them that: Chinese were monitoring sunspots for 5000 years. I rest my case
.

Carnwennan

They called it global warming but it stopped warming, so they named it climate change, then it stopped changing. Priceless.

bushbunny

Calling all scientists who know more than me with my feet firmly planted on terra firma. John West would you want anymore cooling in the Stratosphere, it is minus 60 C already, it gets warmer in the troposphere that is why pilots fly in the the lower stratosphere? Maybe I am wrong but I only googled the met sites.

Gunga Din

“Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.”
=====================================================================
Hmmm….. Did Dr. Phil say what he things caused “the record melt” this year in the Arctic if the warming stopped 15 or 16 years ago?

Where is the Met Office report?
All we seem to get is David Rose’s version (and graphs). And it doesn’t seem to be an anomaly plot (14 °C?).

Jim Clarke

The warmists gladly adopted the warmth produced by the very strong El Nino of 1997-98 as an indication of AGW. I knew this would bite them in the butt, and it has. They would have a stronger and wiser argument today, if they correctly proclaimed that El Nino warmth for what it was, and did not include it in their AGW warming trend claim. Of course, that would not have been as alarming at the end of the last century, but they might still have some credibility today.
Now, they just look stupid, even to the average Joe.

theduke

So, should we all conclude that temperatures are relatively normal, or temporarily normal, or abnormally normal, or apparently normal on a continuing but wholly unpredictable basis? Or are there other possibilities?
Or perhaps, and this is the wine speaking, the plateau is a short respite before we begin a freefall upwards towards utter charbroiledness?
I’m going to bed soon.

Scute – thanks for posting the link to Phil Jones’ ridiculous comment (reported, of course, by the BBC’s Richard Black). Saved me time.

u.k.(us)

LazyTeenager says:
October 13, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Hmm, hold on guys, isn’t this the data set you claim was faked?
Does this mean you believe it, now that is gives the answer you want?
Does this mean you no longer believe that Phil Jones is a cheat?
===============
Barring fevered dreams, the data tells its own tale.

Tom B.

Gunga Din: I think if you look through WUWT posts, you will find one that explains that there was a major storm in the arctic that was a major contributor to the reduction in ice. But, remember, it has been warming for a LONG time, at least 150 years, so even though it may have stopped it is still warmer than it has been for a while. that would certainly impact summer melts. But there is no real evidence that this past summers low ice levels are in any way outside the norm. We only have satellite measurements for a (relatively) short while, and yet there are many anecdotal records of very low ice in the arctic that may have been as low or lower than what our current satellite record shows….

Nick Stokes says: …….
It’s HADCRUT 4 as far as I am aware but updated with the recent data.
It looks like an anomaly graph to me ( although what 14c average seems to be a little arbitrarily chosen ) but it’s not the issue is it? There is no statistically significant trend either way.
unless determining trends I find the anomaly graphs disingenuous because most Joe public have no idea what they are looking at and it’s rarely explained. ( and I suspect purposefully so )

JJ

mbw says:
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?

We didn’t.
The start year is 2012. We pick that year because it is now, and now is the time in which we are most interested.
Then we count back, and see how long a period we can go without any warming. Currently, that is more than 16 years. That is a long time, if predictions of incessant, catastrophic, anthropogenic, weather weirding warming are true. Indicates that they likely aren’t.

apologies for the poor typing. I meant to say ( although that 14c average seems to be a little arbitrarily chosen ).
It’s 4am here and I’ve had more than a few Holsten Pilsner as my weekends are filled with motorcycle racing and inconveniently for me the motogp guys are racing in Japan as we type.

How come the chart shows 2009 as warmer than 2010, and 1997 as warmer than 1998? I thought it was the reverse.

pat

CAGW alarmists ignore or pretend to ignore that Rupert Murdoch’s Sky is part of the non-stop CAGW advocating Aldersgate Group in the UK, no doubt to keep the anti-Murdoch crowd onside. similarly, the Daily Mail is not as anti-CAGW as a few articles by the likes of David Rose might suggest. therefore, i applaud David Rose for breaking the MSM silence and reporting the above, which no other media has, as yet, done:
16 June 2011: Guardian: Bob Ward: The Daily Mail owners buy climate change, so why doesn’t the paper?
The Daily Mail and General Trust is reducing emissions while the paper continues to publish the views of climate sceptics
(Bob Ward is policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science)
The owners of the Daily Mail take climate change very seriously.
The latest annual report of the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) boasts that the company has reduced its emissions of carbon dioxide by more than 13% since 2007, well ahead of its target of a 10% cut by 2012…
Elsewhere, the DMGT website records that the company carried out a review in 2008 to identify “the key risks and opportunities for the group presented by future climate change”.
This review was performed by one of DMGT’s subsidiaries, Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a company (for whom I worked between 2006 and 2008) with headquarters in California that builds computer models of risk for use by the insurance industry.
RMS describes the review as “complementing the efforts being made to measure and reduce DMGT’s carbon footprint” and noted that it “consisted of a thorough assessment of climate change risks to DMGT and opportunities to create business value”…
So why has nobody told the editorial staff at the Daily Mail?…
It is puzzling that the Daily Mail is not more sceptical of the claims made by the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He has a track record for making misleading claims through the media…
Given this latest embarrassment, perhaps the editorial team at the Daily Mail should ask themselves why the newspaper’s parent company apparently doesn’t buy the claims of so-called climate change sceptics?…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/16/daily-mail-climate-change?intcmp=122
give thanx, david rose.

For more impact, a line showing the rise in CO2 over the time period could be overlaid on the chart.

SAMURAI

Given that Algore and Streisand are the two biggest global warming hypocrites on this cooling planet, and in light of the Streisand Effect, which will soon play out on this recent MET report, I think the following is appropriate for the occasion:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jYpcFHtxm60

Roger Carr

Eatin’ crow?
     Try this for size, cui bono:

Eating crow is of a family of idioms having to do with eating and being proved incorrect, such as to “eat dirt” and to “eat your hat” (or shoe), all probably originating from “to eat one’s words”, which first appears in print in 1571 in one of John Calvin’s tracts, on Psalm 62: “God eateth not his words when he hath once spoken”.

Dale

With a failing El Nino, I wouldn’t be putting a bet on next year being hot either.
BTW, Friday night was talking with my Pa. He’s been a commercial flower grower for 60 years in the same paddock. We were talking about how cold this winter was for Melbourne and he said, “I’ve been planting flowers in winter for 60 years. This is the first one in that time where the flowers failed due to it being so cold.”
He’s not scientific, but he’s got a point. It’s been damn cold here this winter.

Richard Day

I await the warmists’ assertions that this is all predicted by the models. lmao.

Mooloo

LazyTeenager says:
Hmm, hold on guys, isn’t this the data set you claim was faked?

Not “faked”. No-one’s claiming any data set is faked, and you know it.
As it happens, I don’t think the data set is right.
But it’s not my report. Why don’t take your gripe to the UK Met Office?
Come to that though – isn’t this the data set you’ve claimed before was accurate? If it is accurate, then what is your problem?

Nick

So what UKMet report released quietly last week was this story based on? Link? Were the comments attributed to Jones and Curry solicited in specific response to this ‘report’?

george e smith

“””””…..mbw says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?…..””””””
Um…..I think that 1997 was the smallest number for the years, in the data that the MET Office released.
It would be dishonest to put in a lower number than the beginning of the data the MET Office released.
Does that answer your question ?

Betapug

The climate has flatlined! We said it was dangerous! CO2 has killed the climate!