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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gunga Din says:
October 13, 2012 at 7:05 pm
“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 (should have been thinks) caused “the record melt” this year in the Arctic if the warming stopped 15 or 16 years ago?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom B. says:
October 13, 2012 at 7:35 pm
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….
========================================================================
Thanks for replying to my comment. I forgot the “sarc” tag.
But what you said is good to remind readers that we don’t know enough or understand enough about the “Global Climate” in general to claim that Man has had much to do with it. As John Coleman pointed out, the real raw data for CAGW is built on sand. To submit our energy policies and economies to an unprovable hypothesis is insane. “Crazy like a fox” comes to mind, but who would be so deceptive to achieve their own goals?
Drudge now has a link to this Daily Mail article. Phil Jones must yearn for the days when he could work without the whole world watching.
Yep…I saw the Drudge link, then came here because I knew there would around a hundred responses.
I, for one, greatly appreciate your efforts. It’s amazing how much work the people around here put into their efforts. Perhaps, a hundred years from now, this will be seen as the flowering of citizen science.
Typhoon is a pedantic windbag at October 14, 2012 at 8:51 am
The source of this post was provided, windbag – don’t ask me to rewrite it.
If you have a legitimate problem, take it up with the author.
Where do they get the precision from raw data that is at best a guess at half a degree accuracy ????
Does anybody know if the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in numerous “cold” stations ceasing to report to the world dataset ?
barry says:
October 14, 2012 at 3:25 am
Linear trends from 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992 to present are very similar. The signal is much stronger than the noise, and adding or subtracting another year’s data little changes the result. But once we shorten the data period the trend results change quite dramatically. Therefore, trend estimates of 20 years or longer are ‘robust,’ and trends results for shorter periods are less so, because they are more strongly influenced by the variability in the data.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, all successful capability to extract signal from noise requires knowledge of the properties of both the signal and the noise (I just made that up but someone prove me wrong). In the case of wireless communications, where noise can often be stronger than the signal, we go to extraordinary lengths to imbue the signal with characteristics to enable us to extract it when deeply buried in noise. The characteristics of the noise are also useful if known. We also encode the signal to help us recognize and correct errors in the signal we extract from the noise.
If you have no idea of the characteristics of the signal and little knowledge of the characteristics of the noise, in my view you will never pull a ‘robust’ signal from the noise because you will have no certainty that what you have extracted is indeed the signal rather than some characteristic of the noise.
Rosco says: October 14, 2012 at 3:30 pm
“Does anybody know if the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in numerous “cold” stations ceasing to report to the world dataset ?”
Rosco, I have read anecdotes that in the Soviet Union (pre~1990) heating fuel was allocated based on how cold it was, so there was widespread false reporting of colder-than-actual temperatures to increase the amount of winter fuel that was allocated.
This practice would have the same result as dropping cold stations – warmer temperatures being reported through the 1990’s since there was no longer any reason to falsify the data.
Perhaps someone can provide a reference source.
Allan MacRae says:
October 14, 2012 at 2:58 pm
So discussing error bars, sources of error, and statistical significance with regards to physical measurements makes one a “pedantic windbag”?
I’m beginning to appreciate why many scientists, outside of climatology, bemoan the poor state of science education.
This is why you shouldn’t drink and derive.
ferdberple says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:46 am
garymount says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:25 pm
My mother has informed me that she saw on the tv news a chart with lots of red on it showing how the worlds oceans are turning acidic.
=============
To say the oceans are turning acidic is a deception. It is a scientific fraud of the worst sort. Freshwater is much more “acidic” than the oceans for example, and we drink fresh water. Plants and animals live in “acidic” fresh water without any problem.
Throw ‘deception’ and ‘fraud’ around at peril of your own credibility.
Many decades of direct observations of the impact of acid rain, and consequent acidification, on biodiversity in various freshwater environments, demonstrate conclusively that acidity can kill.
The impacts range from virtually none at small levels of acidification, through to local extinctions and virtual biotic desertification at high levels of acidification.
Late to this an no one will read this probably, but it isn’t “Georgia Tech” university. It is the Georgia Institute of Technology. No “university” in the title.
Yes, I’m an alumnus.
[ferdberple says:
October 14, 2012 at 9:46 am
garymount says:
October 13, 2012 at 10:25 pm
My mother has informed me that she saw on the tv news a chart with lots of red on it showing how the worlds oceans are turning acidic.
=============
To say the oceans are turning acidic is a deception. It is a scientific fraud of the worst sort. Freshwater is much more “acidic” than the oceans for example, and we drink fresh water. Plants and animals live in “acidic” fresh water without any problem.]
Ferdberple uses two terms which I find distastful in a scientific blog: ‘deception’ and ‘fraud’. These are exremely serious charges. They are not throw-away terms. The latter in particular has legal meaning and is actionable where defamation is at question. I would have preferred the following usage: ‘To say the oceans are turning acidic is incorrect’. The science for this sentence is good. The message is clear. As a corollary, there is a generally-accepted, and scientifically-accurate description of the trend in oceanic chemical consequences of the ever-increasing concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
In relation to freshwater, the generally accepted consensus (a term I hesitate to use, but nevertheless accurate in this context) based on very extensive research and a huge amount of direct field observation, is that very mild changes in acidification of most freshwater environments through acid rain has little or no impact on biodiversity. Beyond that, there is a general trend in which increasing acidification has increasing impacts. This general trend is mediated to some extent by the variable sensitivity to pH levels of different aquatic life-forms. At the more extreme pH ranges, local extinctions occur and virtual biotic deserts form. Historically, it was the phenomenum of ‘dead’ ponds that first raised scientific concern.
Ferdberples general statement that Plants and animals live in “acidic” fresh water ‘without any problem’ is not supported by the evidence.
@commieBob October 14th 2:50pm
Thanks, mate. Makes it worth it.
Barry,
The global warming alarmism was not decided on decades of warming, the claim you are making now is only long enough to judge. It was first decided as early as the mid 1980’s, a period with less than a decade of warming. It was in 1988 with the Hanson global warming testimony to congress.
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4536787614696613&pid=15.1
If it is good enough to show a warming period then, it is good enough to show a non-warming period now. All you are doing is changing the rules all the time with no scientific foundation. A 30 year period is not long enough to judge in my mind, but for the reason the warming previously could never has been alarmed on. Global temperatures are just following the natural roughly 30 year periods of warming and cooling, that is very clear so far.
Typhoon, you wrote anonymously, in first person accusatory tense.
It is a common practise of trolls on this site.
Allan MacRae says:
October 14, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Which part of my original post is trolling as opposed to factual?
I was referring to both the original HADCRUT data and their analysis.
No “you” in my post.
As to whether or not I chose to post anonymously, that’s my business, with no obligation to you.
I personally thank Mother Nature for not cooperating, through sheer chance, with the warmista modeleers. If the warmistas could “show” their correctness, mine and everyone Else’s liberty might be gone already.
This story seems to be doing the rounds of various anti climate change sites, as far as I can tell it’s graph is not based on real data from UK MET, the peak years that UK MET show in their own graphs do not match those in the MailOnline graph, from comment I have seen in other forums the claim that the graph starts at the beginning of 2007 is also incorrect as 2007 started quite cool, the graph also fails to show that. You don’t have to believe me go to the Hadley site look for yourselves. Years like 2005 & 2010 which UK MET show as warm are shown as cooler in the MailOnline graph.
Alright, enough of this nonsense …
HadCRUT4 Signal:
Annual – http://postimage.org/image/o1zqniq21/full
Decadal – http://postimage.org/image/9wtxlph0p/full
30-Year – http://postimage.org/image/xjzhnkbqh/full
CET Signal:
Annual – http://postimage.org/image/s26vzrgix/full
Decadal – http://postimage.org/image/dk9orrp7t/full
30-Year – http://postimage.org/image/5oz5cyfl5/full
Comparison:
Annual – http://postimage.org/image/8o6202p2h/full
Decadal – http://postimage.org/image/ffwh2xe21/full
30-Year – http://postimage.org/image/c6i1wgpyh/full
Pick your time period, choose your answer. Anyone who wants to plot temperature, draw straight lines over it and argue about extrapolation can get lost. Some of you folk would argue the hind leg off a donkey.
AJB,
Please use HadCRUT3. HadCRUT4 replaced HadCRUT3 because 3 caused credibility problems. It was too accurate. HadCRUT4 remedied that situation by “adjusting” the temperature record.
Use HadCRUT3, and see if you get the same result.
ABJ
I think if you go just a little higher, you’ll get the correct part of the donkey’s anatomy from which you speak…
The data links you presented are to 2010… Gee, I wonder why that is? Hmmm….
You also conveniently left off HADCRUT3, CRUTEM3, UAH and RSS global temp databases. Simply an oversight on your part? I don’t think so. These databases also show no statistically significant warming over the past 16 years.
I have absolutely no doubt Global Warming scientists will continue to torture any number of global databases to get the numbers to confess to their dogma.
I really don’t see how these charlatans can continue “fixing” the raw data, especially in light of the EL NIÑO event they were so desperately counting on in 2013 doesn’t seem likely to happen.
Howskecpticalment says: October 14, 2012 at 4:59 pm
“Ferdberple uses two terms which I find distastful in a scientific blog: ‘deception’ and ‘fraud’. These are exremely serious charges. ”
Fraud is the use of deception for material gain.
Fraud requires deception.
Material gain includes financial gain, like windmill subsidies, solar panel subsidies, travel to exotic destinations, graft and of course grants and donations.
Words mean what they mean and should be used where applicable.
“As economic policy, the Kyoto Accord is a disaster. As environmental policy it is a fraud”
Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper
PS.
“My party’s position on the Kyoto Protocol is clear and has been for a long time. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so”
Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper
You know what, he meant it, still does.
Center column of Drudge Report with 30,000,000 page views per day;
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago, Reveals Met Office Report Quietly Released… And Here is the Chart to Prove It
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
D Böehm says, October 14, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Here you go …
HadCRUT3 Signal:
Annual – http://postimage.org/image/odjy8d7s5/full
Decadal – http://postimage.org/image/q6muwosyt/full
30-Year – http://postimage.org/image/819wimtgl/full
HadCRUT 3/4 Comparison:
Annual – http://postimage.org/image/jb2mdkyhx/full
Decadal – http://postimage.org/image/wgi4josdh/full (note period around the 50’s)
30-Year – http://postimage.org/image/64d6e22sl/full
SAMURAI says, October 14, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Both the CET and HadCRUT datasets used run to August 2012. You can’t tease a signal out of the future. CRUTEM3, UAH and RSS will have to wait for another day. I only included CET because it clearly shows that rates of warming during the early 1700s far exceeded anything that happened in the last century. But I guess you missed that.