UPDATE: There’s a response from the Met Office here
A report in the UK Daily Mail reveals a Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it:
By David Rose
- The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
- This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
h/t to reader “Dino”
regarding the significance of the period from 1997, recall that Dr. Ben Santer claimed 17 years was the period needed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said something similar in a WUWT guest post:
There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995.
Bob Tisdale did a 17 and 30 year trend comparison here
Here’s the HADCRUT4 4.1.1. dataset
Oops….
LOADED COMMENT: ”The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures”
THE TRUTH: until 81, they were promoting Nuclear Winter for year 2000, because of the CO2 ”dimming” effect – they were ”MASSAGING” the numbers, to look as if it was getting colder until then. Otherwise, the GLOBAL temperature ”OVERALL” was same as always (prof Hubert L
2] because the countdown for year 2000 was getting closer – not to get them on their lies – they turned 180 degrees in the opposite direction / GLOBAL warming at any cost. . coincided with the falling of the Berlin Wall… the western Reds realized that: they will not concur and oppress the democratic west with Kalashnikovs – so they put a green topcoat on their original red colour, and joined the march.
3] Kyoto conference has given lots of publicity to the new Messiahs / lots of cash and power; but also the attention of the Skeptical people. For the first time the ”climatologist and their data” started to be scrutinized – therefore exuberant claims were made, but no proofs to substantiate those. So, the temperature for the last 16y didn’t plateau; overall temperature was always the same, and always will be. Since Darwin published his book – small number of opportunist started to imitate gods – they predicted since then – seven catastrophic GLOBAL warmings around the corner / six ice ages in less than 10 years, and a Nuclear Winter for year 2000. ”””Discernible, aggregate”” and similar words as: may happen, can happen, some say, it’s possible, if happens -are called: Sir Humphrey’s smokescreen / drivel
Because the ”Skeptics” have being duped by the Warmist; to believe in the phony global warmings – now they are in a psychotic research; to justify for GLOBAL warming not eventuating – Warmist are riding on the Skeptic’s ignorance. It’s galactic dust, is it ozone, it’s sunspot, it’s the seawater guilty… CANNOT FACE THE REALITY AND ADMIT THAT: THEY HAVE BEING DUPED BY BIGGER LIARS THAN THEMSELVES. CO2 emission has doubled, since they started threatening with their phony GLOBAL warming – temperature is same as always… their ”GLOBAL temperature Charts” started disappearing up the Skeptic’s butts – on which the con-artists were showing to one hundredth of a degree precision the whole ”’GLOBAL” temperature… For hundreds, and thousands of years they discovered what was the exact temperature on every spot on the planet?!?! For when the planet was still flat and long before the invention of the not reliable thermometer…. and when was only few thermometers in few capital cities only. Whatever wasn’t available – they were making it up. For example: 10y ago, nobody was aware that sunspots exist; but when powerful filter in 2005 was invented, to be able to look at the sun’s surface and see that is not a red ball… ==== the ”Skeptics” pined sunspots to every GLOBAL temperature chart – sunspots to give support for their previous lies… the nutters cannot notice anything wrong, when stated to them that: Chinese were monitoring sunspots for 5000 years. I rest my case
.
They called it global warming but it stopped warming, so they named it climate change, then it stopped changing. Priceless.
Calling all scientists who know more than me with my feet firmly planted on terra firma. John West would you want anymore cooling in the Stratosphere, it is minus 60 C already, it gets warmer in the troposphere that is why pilots fly in the the lower stratosphere? Maybe I am wrong but I only googled the met sites.
“Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.”
=====================================================================
Hmmm….. Did Dr. Phil say what he things caused “the record melt” this year in the Arctic if the warming stopped 15 or 16 years ago?
Where is the Met Office report?
All we seem to get is David Rose’s version (and graphs). And it doesn’t seem to be an anomaly plot (14 °C?).
The warmists gladly adopted the warmth produced by the very strong El Nino of 1997-98 as an indication of AGW. I knew this would bite them in the butt, and it has. They would have a stronger and wiser argument today, if they correctly proclaimed that El Nino warmth for what it was, and did not include it in their AGW warming trend claim. Of course, that would not have been as alarming at the end of the last century, but they might still have some credibility today.
Now, they just look stupid, even to the average Joe.
So, should we all conclude that temperatures are relatively normal, or temporarily normal, or abnormally normal, or apparently normal on a continuing but wholly unpredictable basis? Or are there other possibilities?
Or perhaps, and this is the wine speaking, the plateau is a short respite before we begin a freefall upwards towards utter charbroiledness?
I’m going to bed soon.
Scute – thanks for posting the link to Phil Jones’ ridiculous comment (reported, of course, by the BBC’s Richard Black). Saved me time.
LazyTeenager says:
October 13, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Hmm, hold on guys, isn’t this the data set you claim was faked?
Does this mean you believe it, now that is gives the answer you want?
Does this mean you no longer believe that Phil Jones is a cheat?
===============
Barring fevered dreams, the data tells its own tale.
Gunga Din: I think if you look through WUWT posts, you will find one that explains that there was a major storm in the arctic that was a major contributor to the reduction in ice. But, remember, it has been warming for a LONG time, at least 150 years, so even though it may have stopped it is still warmer than it has been for a while. that would certainly impact summer melts. But there is no real evidence that this past summers low ice levels are in any way outside the norm. We only have satellite measurements for a (relatively) short while, and yet there are many anecdotal records of very low ice in the arctic that may have been as low or lower than what our current satellite record shows….
Nick Stokes says: …….
It’s HADCRUT 4 as far as I am aware but updated with the recent data.
It looks like an anomaly graph to me ( although what 14c average seems to be a little arbitrarily chosen ) but it’s not the issue is it? There is no statistically significant trend either way.
unless determining trends I find the anomaly graphs disingenuous because most Joe public have no idea what they are looking at and it’s rarely explained. ( and I suspect purposefully so )
mbw says:
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?
We didn’t.
The start year is 2012. We pick that year because it is now, and now is the time in which we are most interested.
Then we count back, and see how long a period we can go without any warming. Currently, that is more than 16 years. That is a long time, if predictions of incessant, catastrophic, anthropogenic, weather weirding warming are true. Indicates that they likely aren’t.
apologies for the poor typing. I meant to say ( although that 14c average seems to be a little arbitrarily chosen ).
It’s 4am here and I’ve had more than a few Holsten Pilsner as my weekends are filled with motorcycle racing and inconveniently for me the motogp guys are racing in Japan as we type.
How come the chart shows 2009 as warmer than 2010, and 1997 as warmer than 1998? I thought it was the reverse.
CAGW alarmists ignore or pretend to ignore that Rupert Murdoch’s Sky is part of the non-stop CAGW advocating Aldersgate Group in the UK, no doubt to keep the anti-Murdoch crowd onside. similarly, the Daily Mail is not as anti-CAGW as a few articles by the likes of David Rose might suggest. therefore, i applaud David Rose for breaking the MSM silence and reporting the above, which no other media has, as yet, done:
16 June 2011: Guardian: Bob Ward: The Daily Mail owners buy climate change, so why doesn’t the paper?
The Daily Mail and General Trust is reducing emissions while the paper continues to publish the views of climate sceptics
(Bob Ward is policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science)
The owners of the Daily Mail take climate change very seriously.
The latest annual report of the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) boasts that the company has reduced its emissions of carbon dioxide by more than 13% since 2007, well ahead of its target of a 10% cut by 2012…
Elsewhere, the DMGT website records that the company carried out a review in 2008 to identify “the key risks and opportunities for the group presented by future climate change”.
This review was performed by one of DMGT’s subsidiaries, Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a company (for whom I worked between 2006 and 2008) with headquarters in California that builds computer models of risk for use by the insurance industry.
RMS describes the review as “complementing the efforts being made to measure and reduce DMGT’s carbon footprint” and noted that it “consisted of a thorough assessment of climate change risks to DMGT and opportunities to create business value”…
So why has nobody told the editorial staff at the Daily Mail?…
It is puzzling that the Daily Mail is not more sceptical of the claims made by the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He has a track record for making misleading claims through the media…
Given this latest embarrassment, perhaps the editorial team at the Daily Mail should ask themselves why the newspaper’s parent company apparently doesn’t buy the claims of so-called climate change sceptics?…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/16/daily-mail-climate-change?intcmp=122
give thanx, david rose.
For more impact, a line showing the rise in CO2 over the time period could be overlaid on the chart.
Given that Algore and Streisand are the two biggest global warming hypocrites on this cooling planet, and in light of the Streisand Effect, which will soon play out on this recent MET report, I think the following is appropriate for the occasion:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jYpcFHtxm60
Eatin’ crow?
Try this for size, cui bono:
With a failing El Nino, I wouldn’t be putting a bet on next year being hot either.
BTW, Friday night was talking with my Pa. He’s been a commercial flower grower for 60 years in the same paddock. We were talking about how cold this winter was for Melbourne and he said, “I’ve been planting flowers in winter for 60 years. This is the first one in that time where the flowers failed due to it being so cold.”
He’s not scientific, but he’s got a point. It’s been damn cold here this winter.
I await the warmists’ assertions that this is all predicted by the models. lmao.
LazyTeenager says:
Hmm, hold on guys, isn’t this the data set you claim was faked?
Not “faked”. No-one’s claiming any data set is faked, and you know it.
As it happens, I don’t think the data set is right.
But it’s not my report. Why don’t take your gripe to the UK Met Office?
Come to that though – isn’t this the data set you’ve claimed before was accurate? If it is accurate, then what is your problem?
So what UKMet report released quietly last week was this story based on? Link? Were the comments attributed to Jones and Curry solicited in specific response to this ‘report’?
“””””…..mbw says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Why did you pick 1997 as your start year?…..””””””
Um…..I think that 1997 was the smallest number for the years, in the data that the MET Office released.
It would be dishonest to put in a lower number than the beginning of the data the MET Office released.
Does that answer your question ?
The climate has flatlined! We said it was dangerous! CO2 has killed the climate!