This time Dr. Judith Curry weighs in. In an email to me earlier this week she revealed that she has been quite busy with this rebuttal (to warmists) and assisting the Mail with this update to the story that appeared last week. Bottom line, the Met Office rebutal was more in agreement than not and Dr. Curry suggests ‘Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’– Anthony
Last week The Mail on Sunday provoked an international storm by publishing a new official world temperature graph showing there has been no global warming since 1997.
The figures came from a database called Hadcrut 4 and were issued by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University.
We received hundreds of responses from readers, who were overwhelmingly critical of those climate change experts who believe that global warming is inevitable.
But the Met Office, whose lead was then followed by climate change campaigners, accused The Mail on Sunday of cherry-picking data in order to mislead readers. It even claimed it had not released a ‘report’, as we had stated, although it put out the figures from which we drew our graph ten days ago.
The Mail on Sunday revealed figures which appeared to show a 16-year ‘pause’ in global warming
Another critic said that climate expert Professor Judith Curry had protested at the way she was represented in our report. However, Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers, responded:
‘A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement . . . effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.
‘Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’
The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’
See the full article with Q&A here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Gray Monk: “The bigger problem at the upper end of the scale is the narcotic effect [of CO2] on the brain. But at 700 ppm it is not measurable.
Maybe warmistas are seriously sensitive to CO2 increases – they certainly seem to have been experiencing strong symptoms of a ‘narcotic effect’ for some years now.
On a more serious note, more CO2 makes for more plant growth, plant growth has a net cooling effect – plants grow and draw water up from the soil which then transpires from the leaves as stoma open to take in CO2. Water liquid becomes water vapour drawing heat from tghe environment.
The evidence is now in that the climate system has definite negative feedback. See Spencer and Lindzen et al.
2012 in Perspective so far on Six Data Sets
Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.
With the UAH anomaly for September at 0.34, the average for the first nine months of the year is (-0.13 -0.13 + 0.05 + 0.23 + 0.18 + 0.24 + 0.13 + 0.20 + 0.34)/9 = 0.123. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 10th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.428. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66.
With the GISS anomaly for September at 0.60, the average for the first nine months of the year is (0.32 + 0.36 + 0.45 + 0.55 + 0.67 + 0.55 + 0.46 + 0.57 + 0.60)/9 = 0.503. This would rank 10th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.88.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for August at 0.508, the average for the first eight months of the year is (0.217 + 0.193 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477 + 0.448 + 0.508)/8 = 0.388. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
With the sea surface anomaly for September at 0.453, the average for the first nine months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.352 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.453)/9 = 0.326. This would rank 10th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555.
With the RSS anomaly for September at 0.383, the average for the first nine months of the year is (-0.059 -0.122 + 0.072 + 0.331 + 0.232 + 0.338 + 0.291 + 0.255 + 0.383)/9 = 0.191. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 11th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for August at 0.526, the average for the first eight months of the year is (0.288 + 0.209 + 0.339 + 0.514 + 0.516 + 0.501 + 0.469 + 0.526)/8 = 0.420. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 11th. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. With the 2011 anomaly at 0.399 in 12th place and the 2008 anomaly of 0.383 in 14th place, if things stay as they are, then 3 of the last 5 years are not even in the top 10 in Hadcrut4.
On all six of the above data sets, a record is out of reach.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 11 years and 9 months to 15 years and 9 months, but note *
1. UAH: (*New update not on woodfortrees yet)
2. GISS: since January 2001 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to September)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since November 2000 or 11 years, 10 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since March 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to August)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since February 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to September)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 9 months (goes to September)
RSS is 189/204 or 92.6% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since November 2000 or 11 years, 10 months (goes to August.)
P.S. My earlier graph estimating Hadcrut4 using GISS was off by only one month as the flat line started in December 2000 in the estimation.
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.16/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.0/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.8/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.08/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.8/trend
MikeB says:
October 21, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Thanks for the quite specific information. Just what I wanted to know
🙂
can not believe all the different comments on this one. wow
I would worry more about the dead body count from freezing conditions worldwide in the coming years, then man-made global warming, now that we have natural global cooling.
See this WUWT story for more clarification;
NASA June 2012 Solar Cycle 24 Prediction
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/08/nasa-june-2012-solar-cycle-24-prediction/
Re-Brand to, “Climate Changes” or “Climate Changing”, NOT “Climate Change”, to be more scientifically accurate terminology please.
Man made global warming stopped? Surly that must be wrong, our planet has periods of warming and cooling which are unavoidable, natural variability is colossal. People do not control our planets temperature. lets record micro climes for the planets anomaly! Process and control should be handed over to our engineers, where it belongs. Climate and political are in bed together, and it is as ugly as it’s sounds.
So Had Crut 3 trend 1997-2012 was 0.01 C per decade, so essentially zero.
HadCrut 4 trend 1997-2012 is 0.06 C per decade.
This seems to me as quite an readjustment…upwards, again. They were bothered with the lack of warming and decided to adjust it away (still moderate, but noticeable. HAdCrut 5 will certainly have 0.15C for the same period, don’t doubt a moment).
The irony is that the Daily Mail is not known for its objectivity and accuracy. As the video link above says, (Andrew30 says: October 21, 2012 at 2:15 pm), it’s read by “the wives of the people who run the country”. That is, people with comfortable responsibility free lives who fear the country is ruined by crime, immigrants and social handouts. The DM has an ongoing campaign to destroy PBS broadcasting (the BBC) which it sees as too left wing (currently through the Jimmy Saville scandal). I am a life long Guardian reader, being typical as: educated, left-of-centre politically (though more centrist with age), environmentally conscientious, supporter of free speech, etc. On climate change, the DM has it nearly right and The Guardian completely wrong.
The pause that depresses (climatologers)
I believe “climate temperature” has hit a 16-year plateau because those fudging the data don’t dare fudge it any more. They’ve tortured about as much warming out of the temperature numbers as they dare while thinking they can get away with it.
What frightens me is the prospect of having a real cool-down that indicates, perhaps, the onset of the next ice age–yet our “official” stance is still one of global warming or at least maintaing the temperature plateau.
There are serious consequences to fudging the data–and none are beneficial to mankind.
‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’
———
Well that is stating the obvious, because that is what the graph says. But Rose is playing a bit of a shell game here. The important question is: what is this plateau in temperature evidence of? Is it evidence that the green house effect has stopped? Answer no. [based on what? . . this looks like trolling . . mod]
In the first place the random variation in the climate system is quite large, making detection of changes in the long term trend difficult to detect. So we don’t know if the plateau is just random variation or a real changed in long term trend. [looks like more trolling . . mod]
If this was just a case of assuming a linear trend with random variation superimposed, then statistical tests can distinguish whether Rose can crow or not.
Since I know squat about statistics, and I am not an authority figure around here anyhow, I suggest you go and pester your favorite statistics auditor for an opinion about Roses hand waving argument.[looks like more trolling . . mod]
I will be cheeky and suggest you will not get an answer. If you don’t, I expect you can figure out the answer from the silence.[yes, you guessed it, more trolling . . mod]
[your content free posts are not adding much and could easily be construed as trolling which I am sure is not your intention. Please try and add to the knowledge content of the site . . mod]
No, no, no! Its “No global warming since 1995”. Don’t go changing the start date to suit your prejudices.
Things were far better when we were an industrial society that produced a constant smog in the atmosphere and millions of tons of particulates that obviously eat the heat from the sun. The atmosphere is far too clean, nothing stands between us and the rays, scandal!
rgbatduke has an excellent post @Oct 21 7:51
An ignorant layman like myself finds posts of that sort most interesting. Up until a short time ago I was unaware that modern weather forecasting is merely the broad application of statistical chance, just slightly better than rolling dice or throwing darts at a board.
John Brookes says:
October 22, 2012 at 3:16 am
Another content and synapse free post. Why even bother? You do not sway anyone by posts like this. In fact, quite the opposite. Are you unable to see this?
David
John Brookes is a well known warmist troll from Australia who infests all sites with inane comments. He’s always found at Jonova’s blog with inane comments. He’s supposedly a faculty member from a University in Australia. A sad state of affairs in that country, with people like him, John Cook, Tim Lambert, John Lewandowsky etc.being associated / funded by Universities with public money.
John Brookes:
Your post at October 22, 2012 at 3:16 am says
No, no, no! Its “No global warming since 1995″. Don’t go changing the start date to suit your prejudices.
NO! It is you who is reversing the period as a method to suit your prejudices.
The “start date” is NOW and the end date is the time in the past when the data indicates global warming stopped. That end date is whatever the data indicates it to be: we are discussing a data series.
Richard
This is all very interesting.
BUT when can I claim back the bullshit road taxes I’ve paid based on CO2 as though its some sort of poison. Then there is all the air flight taxes thats been introduced.
Will there be a Govt response or EU statement from the Brussel-Krauts
No they will just put their blinkers on ignore all the evidence and carry on with the lie
As far as warming, here in new york it seems to get warmer every year. For instance, It’s winter time and it feels like spring. The trees are as green as june, so I don’t know what’s going on and who’s right.
Frederick Michael says:
October 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm
While natural effects may have paused the recovery from the Little Ice Age, there’s a very good chance it will resume. Six months ago, global sea level rise seems to have paused; now it’s back close to the linear trend line.
**********************************************************************************************
I seem to remember reading somewhere (can anyone provide a link?) that the reason sea level appears to be rising (faster?) again is because the latest levels have been adjusted by 3mm to “compensate” for isostatic rebound.
As far as I’m concerned sea level is sea level, if ground level has gone up at the same time is sea level rise a problem?
And in the larger picture, it’s still getting warmer.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/pmod/scale:0.2/offset:-273.6/plot/gistemp/from:1995/trend/plot/pmod/scale:0.2/offset:-273.6/trend/plot/gistemp/mean:131
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/#null
Chris G,
GISSTemp is unreliable. There are plenty of charts showing that GISS lowers past temperatures and raises current temperatures.
Here is a much longer term chart that shows the steadily rising temperature trend from the LIA:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg
And here is another chart showing the steadily rising trend line.
Notice that the rising trend is not accelerating. That shows clearly that rising CO2 has no measurable effect. The effect of CO2, if any, is too small to measure. And if it cannot be measured, it is simply a conjecture; an opinion. Speculation.
There is no empirical evidence showing that CO2 causes global warming. After a ≈40% rise in CO2, we should expect to have at least some empirical confirmation based on scientific evidence. But there is none. And the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, which makes the default position that CO2 has no effect. That conclusion is based on the Scientific Method.
Wishful thinking DB.
What is the source of you first chart?
You can’t prove radiative physics wrong by squashing and detrending data records.
So, what you are saying is that if you shrink the scale, and detrend the data, you can take the trend out of the data. Wow, you’ve got some mad math skills there.
Let’s torture the data a little less and see what what they look like:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/gistemp
If you look at it just right, you can almost see an increase.
There’s no point in me humoring your delusions.
Gee, I don’t know DB; you say GISTEMP is unreliable (unsupported), but you hang your hat on the data set put together by the ‘climategate’ team. So, that team is unrealiable when they are telling you what you don’t want to hear, but they are more reliable than any other when you think they have said something that supports your delusions. I see.
Tell us, which data set do you think is most reliable, and does it show an upward trend?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:131/plot/gistemp/mean:131/plot/best/mean:131/plot/uah/mean:131/plot/rss/mean:131