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.
SAMURAI says: (directed at ABJ)
(SAMURAI’s insult left out)
“The data links you presented are to 2010… Gee, I wonder why that is? Hmmm….”
Try looking at his graph again, the small graduations are years and the data goes past 2010 and into 2012.
Interesting you should use such a defense given the skeptical point of cooling is based on starting in 1998, a year well above the warming trend due to a record El Nino an El Nino that started in late 1997 which is also when the graph in the above story starts. Hmmm indeed!
Andrew30 – I agree, if you pass legislature based on false and/or misleading information that others financially benefit from – then it is deemed acquiring monies under false pretenses? But if you are given a grant to substantiate a political agenda, and manipulate or corrupt the data to prove the hypothesis i.e., the IPCC and Mann, plus Al Gore green energy schemes or carbon trading, I think that is fraud.
Lucy Skywalker (October 14, 2012 at 10:24 am) asked:
“Work with the Electric Universe people?”
Most definitely not. It appears you’ve misinterpreted.
anyone still doubting the gist of the Daily Mail article, needs to ask themselves why have Jones/Curry/Met Office all responded to the facts as outlined by Rose. get a grip.
in the UK, only the Express newspaper has carried the DM report, in a shortened version; however, Express Tribune (with the International Herald Tribune) in Pakistan has it with the Jones/Curry comments:
14 Oct: Express Tribune, Pakistan: Global warming stopped 16 years ago: UK Met department report
A report quietly published by the UK meteorological department has revealed that global warming stopped 16 years ago with no discernible rise in aggregate global temperature, Daily Mail reported on Sunday…
COMMENT: BY MOMINA: “quietly”!!!!!!!
well yes it was so quiet that even we, the students of UEA, also did not hear a whisper in the campus.
It definitely is a bad news for agencies and organisations which cash the “climTe change” cheque.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/451401/global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-uk-met-department-report/
MOMINA IS AN UNUSUAL NAME:
NEXUS: momina sanam
Location: england , norwich
Organisation: UEA, Norwich
Role: student
http://www.nexus.globalquakemodel.org/author/momina
surely that is our Momina. SMILE!
The title of the graph seems confusing.
“Graph showing tenths of a degree above and below 14C world average”
All I can see is a graph showing tenths of a degree above 14C world average, since the vertical axis starts at 0.
Or maybe they meant to say “Graph showing tenths of a degree above and below 14.5C world average”
So it’s either a simple typo or a simple person made the graph.
:/
David– Please take a look at the choice of HADCRUT4 trend-line data A-BJ chooses as his “evidence” that CAGW theory is alive and well…
Don’t make me laugh… The trend lines don’t go through September 2012…. To which you reply: “Oh, but they can’t, because….” Yeah, I know… That’s my point….
Regarding HADCRUT4, this desperate and pitiful attempt for a “new and improved” global database should initially have you laughing on the floor, especially if you run a comparative analysis between it and HADCRUT3. Laughter is soon followed by anger and frustration at the lengths these “scientists” will take to keep their grant money and political agendas alive and well.
If you run a simple Ordinary Least Squares analysis on HADCRUT3, CRUTEM3, UAH and RSS, these databases show absolutely NO warming trend since 1998, which is consistent with the premise of the Daily Mail article.
With the likely start of ANOTHER La NINA cycle highly probable in 2013, and the as the PDO and AMO make their way to multidecadal cooling phases, and as the Sun quickly approaches its lowest solar cycle since 1715, it’s going to be more and more difficult to “hide the decline” and keep “The Cause” alive….
It’s time to pull the plug, or AT LEAST scale back on the $Trillions being spent on this…. “theory”, which seems, by any objective observer, to… be less “settled science” than claimed…
The article says “from the start of 2007”, but the graph is of HADCRUT4 global mean from about half way through 2007. The first half of 2007 was inconveniently cool for the purposes of the author, so while it was referred to in the text, it was not included in the graph.
But who is surprised at this level of patheticness?
Folks,
Just to let you know I’ve updated WFT to use Hadcrut4.1.1 which is up to date to August 2012 – thanks to Sven Jurgenson for pointing out it was available!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:360/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:180/trend
The emperor is now naked. Every false claim about what CO2 does is being destroyed, not by blogs, or sceptics.
By reality.
John Brookes:
You conclude your post at October 14, 2012 at 11:41 pm by asking
Please be assured that no regular reader of WUWT is surprised at the pathetic level of each post you provide.
Richard
Samurai says
If you run a simple Ordinary Least Squares analysis on HADCRUT3, CRUTEM3, UAH and RSS, these databases show absolutely NO warming trend since 1998, which is consistent with the premise of the Daily Mail article.
With the likely start of ANOTHER La NINA cycle highly probable in 2013, and the as the PDO and AMO make their way to multidecadal cooling phases, and as the Sun quickly approaches its lowest solar cycle since 1715, it’s going to be more and more difficult to “hide the decline” and keep “The Cause” alive….
Henry says
I know. I know they are crooks. But how long will they be able to fool the people? According to my own dataset – which I trust better then anything on the table, even though it is only a sample of 47 weather stations – we fell about 0,2 degree C since 2000. By looking at the trend in maxima,
my dataset suggests that earth’s warming stopped and changed to cooling in 1995.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Does any of the data sets that you are referring to, perhaps also have data for maxima?
Furthermore, my dataset shows that earth energy store is now a bit empty, seeing that the speed of cooling on the means has overtaken the speed of cooling on the maxima.
What does this mean?
We are facing some very, very bad cooling in the next few years, as you correctly suggest could be happening. We are at the bottom of the sine wave curve.
From now onward I expect average temps to follow the same route as the maxima, falling by at least as much (I hope it is not more)
It looks like about at least -0.035 degrees C per annum for the next 5 or 6 years. That is another -0.2 degrees C by 2018, bringing the total drop from 2000-2018 to about -0.4 .
Billy Liar,
Yes, you did make that up.
If David Rose had bothered with any of that, then we could talk about that. But he didn’t do any analyses at all. By your own imaginary argument, his comments should be taken less seriously.
But in fact, you don’t need to know the physical properties to extract a trend. You do need to have some understanding of of the physical drivers of noise and trend to talk about cause.
But that’s another subject. Thread topic is David Rose’s ‘analysis,’ isn’t it? How do you think he went by your metirc?
Matt G,
And your corroboration for this is a photo of Hansen?
?
How about the actual testimony?
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
Hansen spoke about the centennial temperature record and posited a warming trend for 30 years to 1988.
Why are people making stuff up?
climatereason,
delighted to enlighten you as to why a ‘local’ data set such as Cet has relevance to the global temperatures. Its because many leading scientists say so
Could you please enlighten me as to which leading scientists (Jones, Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Pileke, Spencer, Lindzen, Christy?) say that CET is a good proxy for global temperatures? Could you cite them, please?
The correlation doesn’t see to be excellent, according to AJB’s chart.
http://postimage.org/image/ffwh2xe21/full
The current solar cycle is scheduled to peak sometime in the next 12 months or so. After that it’s down hill. Plus the predictions for solar cycle 25 are for it to be a very weak one. Brr.
Barry
I never used the word excellent, I said has some ‘relevance.’
The easiest place to see the correlation is in my article with graphics carried here, that put CET besides the BEST historic record with the note;.
“According to studies made by a number of climate scientists, CET is a reasonable proxy for Northern Hemisphere -and to some extent global temperatures- as documented in ‘The Long Slow Thaw’. However, as Hubert Lamb observed, it can ‘show us the tendency but not the precision’. In that light there are a number of comments that can be made about the Combined CET/BEST graph which are shown above in two versions that, viewed together, provide the opportunity to follow the ups and down of the ever changing climate over the 350 years of instrumental records.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/
My article ‘The long slow thaw’ details the scientists who saw a correlation to northern hemisphere and to Global-see Chapter 5 and the references.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
They include Hubert Lamb, E W Bliss, Mike Hulme, Elaine Barrow, Mike Hulme, Phil Jones, Michael Mann. Subsequent to the article I researched another dozen or so who saw some relevance.
I tend to side with Hubert Lamb that we should see CET as an indicator-it is not precise-however, the graphics in the first article do demonstrate a surprising correlation with the wider world, albeit that with Britain being a temperate nation we do not show the extremes that BEST record.
tonyb
barry:
Your post at October 15, 2012 at 5:44 am is disingenuous at best.
Matt G is correct when he writes
But you say
According to Hansen’s own GHCN data there was only warming for about 15 years prior to Hansen’s testimony in 1988: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg&page=1
In other words, Hansen was being deliberately misleading when he talked about the “rate of warming over the last 25 years” (n.b. NOT 30 years). And you claim he did not state such a period but only discussed “the centennial temperature record”.
Please note that his only reference to 30 years with regard to the evidence for AGW is his statement of the climatological mean obtained for reference which he said was “1950 to 1980”.
His major argument in his Submission (in the link you provide and I have quoted) was that 1987 and 1988 were the warmest in the record. He did not mention that this was recovery from the LIA (which he did not mention) but suggested it was an effect of AGW.
As for Hansen using “the centennial temperature record”, that record has two warming periods prior to 1988 according to Hansen’s own GHCN data. These periods were ~1910 to 1940 and 1963 to 1988. The two periods show the same rate of warming but the earlier period was before significant anthropogenic GHG emissions.
In other words, Hansen’s own data shows “the centennial temperature record” clearly indicates recovery from the LIA with no indication of any contribution from AGW.
You conclude your post by asking
Only you can answer that question because only you is “making stuff up”.
Richard
Barry:
In my post to you, I should have mentioned that Matt G was correct when he talked about “only a decade of warming”. At the time of Hansen’s testimony in 1988 that was true according to the then GHCBN data. My response cites the existing GHCN data which has been “adjusted” by Hansen et al. since then.
Richard
@DDP says:
October 13, 2012 at 5:30 pm
“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.”
——————————————————————————————————
Phil Jones from the climategate emails:
As you
know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers
Phil
TonyB,
Lamb used ‘data’ from all over europe, not just CET, to derive his diagram. I am aware that some researchers have said CET is a reasonable proxy for NH temps, but never global. But Lamb’s work was one of the earliest reconstructions, and you seem to imply in the Long Slow Thaw, that it is a serious competitor for all the later reconstrctions…. but I’m getting off the point.
CET may or may not be a reasonable proxy for NH temps, but it is no substitute for the periods we are talkling about. Why use CET for the last few decades above the global record, which has far more data for both North and South Hemisphere?
I do not understand why CET is such a talking point when discussing recent trends. Different locales/regions have quite different temp profiles. Whatever correlation between CET and global there may be, it just seems a bit of a red-herring for recent global temps.
Richard,
Hansen used a full 30-year period, regardless, and the trend showed significant warming.
The point I’m making is that too short periods are dicey to use to detect climate change. I’d make that point AGAINST Hansen if he had done that in 1988.
But… if you think Hansen was relying on a 15 year trend, and that this was wrong, how does this support David Rose’s 16 year trend?
Lights @ur momisugly Lucy & HenryP
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/14/pause-discussion-thread/#comment-254630
barry says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:43 am
You’re the one who started prattling on about ‘we are looking for a climate signal’.
My hypothesis, elegantly disproved in your post, is ‘dream on’.
Henry@TonyB, barry, Richard & others
You guys keep not getting the point I have been trying to make for a long time.
Earth stores energy in its waters, vegetations, chemicals, etc. On top of that we have earth’s own volcanic actions which also provides heating/cooling, whatever. So whatever comes out as average temp. is bound to be confusing, even on relatively short terms.
Therefore, the average mean temp. (where ever you sit on earth measuring) is the wrong parameter to look at.
So why on earth do you all keep looking at the wrong parameter?
Start looking at max. temps. which is like energy in, and from there, you can start looking at other parameters.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-
temperatures/
e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/#comment-1109341
Paul says
Lights @ur momisugly Lucy & HenryP
Henry says
nice song, good lyrics.
where ever there is disorder (like ending up in prison, or worse: on this blog with a bunch of people who never want to listen)
you are the peace sign…
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/07/23/why-do-i-believe-in-god/
lights on? – lights off?
God bless you all!