By Paul Homewood
Last July, the Met Office published the second in a series of papers, discussing the recent pause in global warming.
On page 6, they state:
The start of the current pause is difficult to determine precisely. Although 1998 is often quoted as the start of the current pause, this was an exceptionally warm year because of the largest El Niño in the instrumental record. This was followed by a strong La Niña event and a fall in global surface temperature of around 0.2oC (Figure 1), equivalent in magnitude to the average decadal warming trend in recent decades. It is only really since 2000 that the rise in global surface temperatures has paused.
Source: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF
They accept that the pause is unequivocal, certainly since 2000. They also seem to accept that the pause really started in 1998, although the period 1998-2000 was complicated by El Nino/La Nina episodes. (It is worth noting here that the two La Nina years of 1999/2000 more than offset the 1998 El Nino year – the average temperature of the three years together come out lower than 1997. It is arguable, therefore, that 1998 is a fair start point).
But, regardless of the exact start point, they fully accept that the pause is real and long lasting.
So why, in January 2012, in response to an article in the Mail by David Rose, did they issue a press release saying:
Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Instead, they themselves fell back on the misleading “hottest decade ever” red herring.
However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.
And they were at it again a few months later in October that year. Again David Rose had published an article, pointing out the pause in global warming.
The Met Office had this to say:
An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’
It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here……
The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.
As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading.
So, who is actually doing the misleading? If the Met Office now openly accept that the pause is real, and started at least 13 years ago, why did they try so hard to cover this fact up two years ago?
Whatever the actual temperature forecasts, I wouldn’t mind hearing some from the non-alarmist camp begin to forecast warming temperatures. That way, headlines can read either “Temperature Increase are Below the Non-Alarmists Forecasts Again.” Or they can read, “Non-Alarmists Forecasts Come in Closer Than Alarmist Forecasts, Again.”
For The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley, I guess you could say the Met office don’t command respect.
Well, here in the UK we have a healthy disrespect for every organisation!
“MET- Office: New four year ‘decadal’ forecast spaghetti”
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/met-office-new-four-year-decadal-forecast-spaghetti/
“It’s a “Decadal forecast”, which runs from now to the beginning (not the end, Ed) of 2018.”
Felipe Grey says:
January 29, 2014 at 5:16 am
I would like to make a prediction. I believe it is true that if you live in the UK and are still young enough to play football (not soccer) you’re 95% less likely to know the difference between they’re, their and there, as well as you’re and your. I am 100% more certain of my prediction than the Met Office can be about tomorrow’s weather.
Well said. You can add its and it’s to that.
Paul Homewood said: “(It is worth noting here that the two La Nina years of 1999/2000 more than offset the 1998 El Nino year – the average temperature of the three years together come out lower than 1997. It is arguable, therefore, that 1998 is a fair start point).”
However, the 1997 global temperature figure was boosted by the El Nino. Even though the El Nino peaked in 1998, it started in 1997. That El Nino, like most El Ninos, was centered in northern hemisphere winter.
I would say the pause started in 2001.
It’s nice to be read. But it’s better to be read, and understood.
DDMore’s reply to my posting above about the length of the “pause” contains these words:”If you want to disregard the spike, go back and tell everyone you were lying then”. That’s not only libellous it’s also based on a complete misunderstanding of what I said in my posting. Lying about what and when I have to ask? I’ve only been commenting on the “global warming” situation for a few years and I’ve always been a sceptic ( a real one, which is obvious from my posting and previous ones – and the short poem Doubting’s a Disease – search for title and my name if you care). The El nino of 98 produced a marked spike. Fact. Making that year’s temps anomalous. That seems pretty straightforward to me. I’m not interested in scoring points or supporting any side. I’m only interested in the pursuit of greater knowledge and understanding, and the greatest weapon in that pursuit is doubt.. I doubt that the data presented to us supports the claim of a 17 year hiatus/plateau/halt etsemanticetera. I also doubt the data but that’s a separate issue.
Richardscourtney: I’m only interested in trying to engage with objective reality so far as that’s possible – which this whole debate shows is very difficult for human beings. I try to keep it as simple as possible by not being reductionist and also by disregarding as much statistical processing as possible. 98 was an obvious spike and temps dropped off immediately afterwards. Using your view of working back from the present – perfectly appropriate as an option in this situation if we’re to looking.to identify the length of the pause – still takes me back just 12 years give or take a few months. I am simply trying to be as accurate as possible with the info we have to hand (and the next sentence isn’t a contradiction). I never said it was accurate info, and in fact made it clear that I have grave doubts about it’s accuracy. But it’s all we have – at the moment -, and those claiming a 17 year hiatus do the sceptical cause no good for 2 reasons: 1) the thinking man on the street who has to deal with the world as he sees it will look at the graph and see something very like I saw: a reliable 12 year flat line, and thus be more inclined to be doubtful of other anti AGW claims. And 2) it gives ammo to the opposition. Cherry picking is the accusation that’s bandied back and forth all the time, why give them the ammo? It’s boring I know, but sticking to the supportable – and at this moment incontrovertible (but for how long) – direct evidence scrupulously is the way to demolish the unfounded.
I’m not the biggest Willis Eschenbach fan – though he’s very bright, I’ll give him that, and that’s a very important quality in the search for understanding – but, I sympathise with his concern that detractors read carefully what he has to say, and further, it would be good not to have attributed to me anything I’ve never said. .