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.
Nick Stokes:
“Well, the issue is, what is it? And how is it related to the Met Office It’s attributed to someone called Weller. It doesn’t look to me like a regular global index. It has a huge spike in 2006, which was not a very warm year, and not much of the usual 1998 spike. I think skeptics should be skeptical.”
I was, so I had a look. Seems like Hadcrut4 to me:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2012
No real news here! This has been known for a while, and underscores the public’s wisdom in doubting the “warm-mongers.” See:
http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Temp_%26_CO2.html
which was originally posted last March. It looks like governments must find other excuses that justify taxation. Climate doesn’t work anymore!!!
Notice the (unmentioned, even in the Daily Mail) revision that replaced the prior Hadley UEA graphic that now elevated the summer of 2006 to a higher position than 1998. And, of course, the range now exceeds the two tenths of a degree C in the replaced chart. Amazing how past hard data gets a new lease on a more varied life.
See the Daily Mail article for the “newer” version and the colderside link for the original. Both have the same “source.”
Lastly, keep in mind that the sea surface temperatures are still trending upwards, and the 1000 to one ratio of heat content (Ocean to Atmosphere) still is in play. Yet land temps will begin to drag the ocean temperatures down – the lag is likely scores of years, but down they will come eventually.
Wait until the albedo effects of the September open Arctic are felt with early snow deposition surrounding the Arctic ocean. The October lows over the US are a harbinger of things to come!
SAMURAI says October 14, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Excuse me, do you understand what you’re looking at? These plots are of the rate of warming/cooling expressed as running means over specific timescales; the only measure we’re actually interested in. Please check the labels on vertical axes. I’ve plotted three timescales: annual, decadal and the 30-year period climate grant cocktail shakers pull out of thin air. I can do a centennial one if you like. What do you suppose that would show given the lunacy of the base data?
None of them show CAGW theory is alive and well. They all show stasis from about 1995 followed by deceleration, consistent with the Daily Mail article. More importantly, they show no exceptional trend over any timescale and arguments about start and stop points for linear trends cannot apply. CAGW theorists need to find a new red trolley. As Henry P says, it’s going to be more and more difficult to “hide the decline” and keep “The Cause” alive.
Barry
1) Lamb did a pretty good approximation of the \nh/\global temperature reords using a wide variety of sources. In the long slow I highlight his approach as compared to Dr Mann who used very few
2) CET is the most scrutinised temperature data base in the world and as such has had the rough edges knocked off it by Manley and Parker. Many others have recognised that there is a correlation betwen Cet and the Northern Hemisphere/Global temperature. I think Lamb chose the word ‘tendancy’ well. Having said that the intriguing correlation is there for all to see in my first article. Consequently CET has some merit which is why I, and many other researchers, use it
I absolutely agree with you that other areas have different temperature profiles which is why I think the notion of a ‘global’ tempeature is flawed. For example the global record is composed of places that are warmng or cooling and static but at present the warming signal (mostly uhi?) predominates. The cooling areas (one third of all stations) were explored in this article by Brown and Jones. .
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
Personally I wouldn’t bet the house on any temperature record beng acurate enough to base policy on
tonyb
barry:
At October 15, 2012 at 8:26 am (in reply to my refutation of falsehoods from you) you say to me
Firstly, your question is a non sequitur. You claimed that Hansen only relied on the century data and he did not: he relied on then recent data over a shorter time period and made much of the temperature of the individual years 1987 and 1988.
Secondly, the answer to your question is self-evident; i.e.
If Hansen could validly use a 15-year-long period of warming as evidence that AGW exists then it is at least equally valid for Rose to use a 16-year-long period of no warming as evidence that AGW does not exist.
(What is good for the goose is good for the gander).
It seems your posts are becoming progressively more silly as your desperation increases with nature’s refusal to agree with your AGW superstition.
Richard
Worried that data may not show global temperature continuing to rise — confirmation bias anyone?
Peter Staats:
At October 15, 2012 at 12:21 pm you ask
NO! On the contrary.
The warming stopped 16 years ago and many – including me – hope that warming with all its benefits will resume, but we are worried that cooling may occur.
Richard
Bit vague – what ‘few’ trees and which analysis? MBH98 and 99 were about the NH, for example, so which analyses are you referring to, Anthony?
Hmmm….. So I guess the science is not settled and the debate is not over.
Gary Pearse in his reply to Lazyteenager says; “This is too easy Lazy. Had they not stepped the temps up in recent decades and stepped them down in earlier decades (net 0.5 C+ since the 30s) we would have significant cooling instead of “no statistically significant warming”. The trouble with these step functions though is that going forward, you may have to step the recent ones back down again to maintain recent up-trends and this would put 1934 into a “year without summer”. This is likely already in the works – they can’t let this go on past the 17th year.”
In other words the AGW freaks have very possibly shafted humanity twice, once by making us shut down our power stations and replace them with useless windmills and secondly not warned us about the possibilty of colder weather conditions in the future?
barry says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:44 am
Barry,
Only person I see is you making stuff up with Richard partly addressing this. Nobody in the mid 1980’s would have stated that warming had occurred for decades before. If you don”t want to believe that then it is your problem. No wonder your views are wrong when you can’t even get the data facts right.
All the data sets below that cover this 30 year period up to 1988 show no warming before 1980. There was a long period of general cooling with scares about the next ice age. They show that warming occurred after 1980 that is a period less than a decade before 1988. Even the GISS global mean shows a slight linear cooling in the data up to 1979. (shown below)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1959/to:1988/plot/gistemp/from:1959/to:1988/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1959/to:1988/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1959/to:1988/plot/gistemp/from:1959/to:1979/trend
The same basic error is made time and again by both ‘climate skeptics’ and ‘climate changists’ alike. Picking an arbitrary point in the temperature record for the past few years, drawing a linear trend to today, and extrapolating wildly on this basis, is meaningless. Yet it’s being done on this blog, and others like it. It’s being done when heat waves are called evidence for global warming, and when a cold winter is called evidence against it. It’s being done here, when 1997 is picked as a start point and a linear trendline ‘proves’ that a plateau has now been reached prior to a plunge back into an ice age.
The calculation of trends from the last 16 years ignores the basic meaning of ‘climate’, a long-term average over a 30 year period, to avoid getting lost in the noise of short-term variability cycles like ENSO. Anything less than that is not a measure of global climatic change at all. Observations of long-term trends are (like this one).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2012/trend
Models that can successfully reproduce these observed changes can give us a reasonable prediction of future long-term change, on the multi-decadal scale. Let’s stop trying to make short-term trends fit our own agendas, whatever they may be, and concentrate on the impacts of the global changes that we know are happening.
JTR says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/#comment-1112119
henry says
I think it is fair to take a shorter view, like here,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend
provided you have a good idea of where we are heading, i.e. the long term trend (no models)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Note one of my comments there about the correlation with Nile flooding.
BTW
did anyone pick up that (very) high peak on hadcrut 4 @ur momisugly 2007? Looks a bit suspicious to me.
Stop worrying about the carbon. Start preparing for cooler weather.