No Warming in UK since 2006

From Not A Lot Of People Know That

JANUARY 2, 2021

By Paul Homewood

image

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/index.html

The annual data for 2020 has now been published for the CET, with the mean temperature ending up at 10.76C.

No doubt we will get the usual hysteria from the Met Office about the “third warmest year on record”, “nine of the ten warmest years since 1990”, blah, blah!

However this will be no more than an attempt to cover up the highly inconvenient truth, which is that warming stopped in 2006. The 10-year running average shows this clearly.

We can get a clearer picture of this by zooming in on the period since 1991. The 10-year average rose slowly during the 1990s and early 2000s. But since then they have gradually declined, having reached the peak for the 1997 to 2006 period:

image

Which all leads us around to the question of what is the “normal” climate for England?

The Met Office would say this is the 30-year average, but this is only an artificial construct for convenience. Currently the 10-year average on CET is 10.40C, which is barely above the 1991-2020 average of 10.25C. The difference is well within any margin of natural variation.

After all, annual temperatures rose from 8.86C in 2010, to 10.72C the following year, purely because of variations in “weather”.

The chart below, which plots the highest and lowest monthly mean temperatures for each month since 1991, shows just how variable English weather can be:

image

If the “hottest” months all occurred in the same year, the annual mean would be 12.8C. And if the same applied to the “coldest” months, the annual mean would be 7.3C.

The next chart shows this range, when overlaid on the actual annual temperatures:

image

Although such an eventuality may be exceedingly unlikely statistically, I see no reason meteorologically why it should not be possible.

To sum up, the idea that there is a “normal” annual temperature, or for that matter climate, in England is unscientific. Indeed, it is no more scientific than a claim that there is “normal” weather here.

What still dominates English “climate” is the variability of its weather, on a day-to-day, month-to-month, and even year-to-year basis. Any underlying climatic trends are drowned out in the noise.

According to the CET, annual temperatures rose by about 0.7C between the 1940s and 2000s. But how much of this was related to the underlying climatic conditions, and how much was due to weather?

Perhaps the best clue we have is to compare the warmest years. Whilst 2014 was the hottest at 10.95C, the year of 1949 was not far behind with 10.65C. Go back further, and we see years such as 1733, 1779 and 1834, all above 10.4C.

This suggests that most of the warming seen in the last three decades is related to weather, rather than climate change.

image

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/mly_cet_mean_sort.txt

4.7 15 votes
Article Rating
177 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom
January 3, 2021 10:18 am

So what? You’ve cherry picked a date.

Mr.
Reply to  Tom
January 3, 2021 10:32 am

All the dates that show post-industrial revolution anthro warming were cherry picked too.

So so what to your so what.

2hotel9
Reply to  Tom
January 3, 2021 11:07 am

If you got to cherry pick your dates you need to date smaller women. Or men. Or whatevers.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Tom
January 3, 2021 11:53 am

Thank you Tom – the pennies are starting to drop.

Because and unless you or anyone can come up with a way of measuring Climate Change without picking A Date..

…..you ready for this…..sit down maybe…. don’t be driving….hold onto something

You have very effectively shot down The Whole Of Climate Science
Killed It Stone Cold Dead
That’s it.
Finito
End.

Many would argue it was complete deadified Zombie Science to start with but never mind.
Its all over now.
bad dream

Everyone give Tom big hugs and kisses
(Griffles seems perfectly adept at hugging himself. 25 years. Wow. That’s nearly forever!!!)

We can all go back to reality now.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 3, 2021 4:33 pm

But it is raw data. How can anyone believe (and I choose that word with intent) it?

Hivemind
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 4, 2021 5:16 am

That’s the problem. Obviously raw data won’t show global warming. Only data that’s been properly homogenised will create a warming trend. /Sarc

That’s how we know that climate science is a fraud.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 4, 2021 2:48 am

Excellent comment!

Climate records are essentially auto-correlated sequences of random numbers. Imagine flipping a fair coin, then taking a step to the right for a heads, and a step left for tails. Plot a graph of your position against time, and you will have a pretty good simulation of any temperature-time series. There is absolutely NO trend, yet one can manufacture a rising, falling, or flat one merely by choosing the appropriate interval.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom
January 3, 2021 12:52 pm

Care to demonstrate that? Or do you believe it’s enough to make a baseless pronouncement.

Regardless, the chart clearly shows that there has been no warming for 30 years. According to the leading “scientists” of global warming, this isn’t possible.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  MarkW
January 3, 2021 5:52 pm

Why not demonstrate it to yourself? That’s what skeptics should do, right? There’s a link to the data in the article. Follow it, download the annual file to a spreadsheet and run a linear trend through it. In this way you can demonstrate to yourself that the warming rate over the past 30 years (since 1991) in CET is +0.16 C/dec. Since 2006 it’s +0.3 C/dec. It is simply false to say that warming in CET stopped in 2006.

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 3, 2021 6:34 pm

If you have to add a couple of super El Ninos to your data in order to find the trend that you want, then you really haven’t demonstrated anything.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  MarkW
January 4, 2021 4:04 am

What have El Ninos got to do with the false claim that warming in CET stopped in 2006. It patently didn’t. Anyone can check that. Very odd that so many skeptics here seem not to have done so.

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 4, 2021 4:28 am

Actually, CET warming stopped in 1997..

ANYONE can check that…

comment image

Very odd that you can’t accept that FACT.

… that’s what happens when you get totally brain-washed all the time.. your mind turns to rust.

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 3, 2021 10:01 pm

comment image

1997-2020 dead flat

poor rusty, slapped about the head yet again!

TheFinalNail
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 4:07 am

The false claim that CET stopped warming in 2006 is exposed (by the simple means of checking the data linked to for ourselves), so we move the goalposts now back to 1997. In addition, we drop off Jan 1997 (because otherwise that would show a slight warming trend) and mislabel our chart. Fred says he is a skeptic.

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 4, 2021 4:11 am

Poor rusty, cannot accept simple FACTS

Been ZERO TREND for even longer that Paul thought it was.

(Snipped, stop the insults!) SUNMOD

Do at least try to think for yourself. !

Perhaps YOU would like to try to support the AGW farce.. starting at the beginning

Or will YOU be the same ABJECT FAILURE that loy always is !!

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Last edited 3 months ago by Sunsettommy
fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 4, 2021 4:33 am

“we drop off Jan 1997”

ROFLMAO

I gave you the chance to show your MATHEMATICAL INCOMPETENCE, and you fell right into it. 🙂

Thank you 🙂

You really are CLUELESS about calculating real trends in period series, aren’t you

HILARIOUS…

(Snipped out the insult) SUNMOD

Last edited 3 months ago by Sunsettommy
Weekly_rise
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 9:17 am

If I plot the yearly means from 1997 through 2020 I get a similar slightly negative trend to yours:

comment image

However, a simple regression analysis shows that this trend is not statistically significant at the 95% level:

comment image

Isn’t it therefore factually incorrect to say there has been no warming since 1997? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say the data are too noisy to establish a trend for this period?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 5, 2021 9:12 am

This is for both sides. I’ve been doing a lot of researching into trending and how Global Temperature Anomalies are determined and trending. I have found the following.

The temps being used are a time series. Trending and forecasting time series accurately requires that it has stationarity. Here is a link to a University site that deals with this (so you won’t think this is just my opinion):

https://people.duke.edu/~rnau/411diff.htm

Let me quote from it. “Statistical stationarity: A stationary time series is one whose statistical properties such as mean, variance, autocorrelation, etc. are all constant over time. Most statistical forecasting methods are based on the assumption that the time series can be rendered approximately stationary (i.e., “stationarized”) through the use of mathematical transformations.“.

Statistical forecasting methods include regression. I am afraid that this is sadly missing in a lot of climate science trending of temperatures. The formation of a GTA appears to sadly run roughshod over this making it meaningless.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 5, 2021 2:50 pm

Trending and forecasting time series accurately requires that it has stationarity.

I’m not an expert on this, but I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. If a time series is stationary, then by definition it doesn’t have a trend. Stationarity is important for a lot of analysis, but not for determining a trend.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Bellman
January 6, 2021 9:18 am

Read the link I put in to get a brief description of why stationarity is important.

Remember, the GAT is a compendium of multiple time series, i.e. data streams from many different stations. Each of those station’s temperature records have various statistical parameters. Download data for Santa Barbara and Tulsa, Okla. You’ll quickly see that each series have quite different statistical parameters. Doing a regression on a combination like these is going to give you a very uncertain trend line.

Imagine two different stocks. Would you trust a trend that just used the prices added together and averaged?

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 8, 2021 6:18 am

Of course stationarity is important, but I’m not sure you understand what it means when you say you cannot trend a time series if it isn’t stationary.

As I said I don’t like going into too much detail on a subject I only have passing knowledge of, but I think you need to understand there are different types of non-stationary time series. Specifically a series can be trend-stationary, meaning it isn’t stationary because it has a trend, but if you remove the trend it is stationary. Hence it’s entirely possible for a time series to not be stationary, but to still have a trend.

And when I test the GISS temperature time series using a standard test for non-stationary it passes, that is the GISS data is trend-stationary.

I’m not sure why you think this has anything to do with combining multiple data points to produce an average.

fred250
Reply to  Tom
January 3, 2021 1:18 pm

The whole of the AGW malarkey rests on starting at the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

Its a monumental cherry-pick.

Tom
Reply to  Tom
January 3, 2021 2:03 pm

No one thinks global temperature trends can be measured by looking at one or two decades.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Tom
January 3, 2021 2:51 pm

How long is your record, Tom? Give Griff a helping hand. He can’t answer this question, and I suspect you won’t either.

Tom
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 3, 2021 5:49 pm

Here’s the thing. This blog is infiltrated with people like you who do nothing but attack those that don’t toe the party line. I don’t have a party line, so when I see a foul ball, I call it foul. It is going to be a long time before we can put the question on how much global warming is occurring to bed. I’m sorry I won’t live that long, but that’s the way it is. Up to now, it’s mostly in the realm of natural variability.

Editor
Reply to  Tom
January 3, 2021 10:20 pm

Then you can’t answer a simple question.

Thank you……

AngryScotonFraggleRock
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 4, 2021 1:40 am

Or read a simple graph 🤣🤣🤣

Graemethecat
Reply to  Tom
January 4, 2021 4:07 am

There’s no “line” on WUWT. The folk here just don’t like being lied to by trolls like Loydo.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Tom
January 4, 2021 4:47 am

In other words, you can’t / won’t answer that very simple question either because the answer does not toe your party line.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom
January 4, 2021 7:40 am

Tom, it did not go unnoticed that you failed to answer David’s question, instead you chose to dodge and weave. That’s very telling.

lee
Reply to  Tom
January 3, 2021 7:37 pm

No thinking person believes global temperature trends can be measured. There fixed it for you.

lee
Reply to  lee
January 3, 2021 8:45 pm

To any great accuracy.

M Courtney
Reply to  Tom
January 4, 2021 10:36 am

No date has been cherry picked. It is fixed at <b>NOW</b>.
NOW is special. It is where we are.
Then you go back in time until the warming (or cooling) trend becomes significant.
And we find that there is no trend for a period of about a decade and a half.
Does that matter?
Well, it depends on how long your infrastructure is built to last for.
It certainly looks like the impact of AGW + Natural Warming is insignificant. Our routine infrastructure upgrades will deal with it at virtually no cost.

griff
January 3, 2021 10:19 am

Well, we certainly have plenty of climate change in the UK, with a continued uptick in extreme rainfall and damaging storms, floods. Of course the UK climate has changed… of course it has warmed. I’m out in it every day and have weather notes going back 25 years.

Phil Rae
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 10:30 am

And you call that climate change, griff? Please……don’t insult our intelligence!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 10:49 am

Oh Griffy-poo, come back when you understand the difference between weather and climate.

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 11:14 am

25 years?!?!? WOW!!!! What a fount of knowledge you are! That silly Royal Navy only has records back to the 1600s. How dare anyone question your absolute authority on all issues of climate and weather.

Vuk
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 11:15 am

Hi Griffo, Happy new year to you and I hope you had a good Xmas.
There is something call 60 year cycle in England and N. Europe in general, you have to have lived at least 3/4 of it ( as I have) to be able to talk about climate change in the UK. Keep safe.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 11:25 am

Griff

You are taking an extremely short term view which is not even long enough to be termed ‘climate.’

Here is my ‘Man of 70 graph’ (figure5) whereby I calculated the average temperature a Man of 70 would have experienced during his life time. It has been rising for some 300 years not 25, predating co2 increases

The Intermittent Little Ice Age | Climate Etc. (judithcurry.com)

Tonyb

Loren C. Wilson
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 12:14 pm

You made that claim a few days ago – again with no data to support it. The person who rebutted your claim showed the precipitation for England and there is no catastrophic uptick in extreme rainfall, as you put it. Please support your statements and define your terms. Then at least we can show you that you are wrong by comparing apples to apples.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Loren C. Wilson
January 3, 2021 1:58 pm

My dear Chap, Griff has been educated for some years and has never learnt anything.

Greg
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 12:24 pm

“I’m out in it every day and have weather notes going back 25 years.”
Oh please publish you “weather notes” for all to see. I’m sure this is a valuable resource which will convince everyone you have been right all along.

Oh hang on, you were not actually saying what you “weather notes” did show. Maybe you could explain what we should conclude from your claim. Is it, “I’m an expert because I have ‘weather notes’. You should join the IPCC.

observa
Reply to  Greg
January 4, 2021 6:31 am

Griff is going to slay you non-believers in a minute by telling you what part of UK he’s been gathering his weather notes in.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 12:53 pm

griff really believes that if he tells a lie often enough, it will become the truth.

Derg
Reply to  MarkW
January 3, 2021 1:22 pm

Mark it works for them. For now.

fred250
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 1:21 pm

LIAR ! There is no data to support your extreme weather LIES and MISINFORMATION.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 1:41 pm

Congratulations Griff. I’m also out in it every day and I dare say I can beat your weather observations by a good few years. As several of us have already pointed out, your claims are false and clearly unsupported by the data as well as being unsupported by the IPCC reports. Give it up Griff, you’ve become a sick joke – macabre and dark since your religion will lead to the deaths and suffering of millions. Do you really want that on your conscience?

ATheoK
Reply to  Richard Page
January 3, 2021 7:08 pm

Griff, you’ve become a sick joke – macabre and dark since your religion will lead to the deaths and suffering of millions.”

Aye!
And keeps hundreds of millions cooking and living in small smoky rooms over smoking wood and dung stoves.

All to make richer those who parasitize people burdened by the global warming scam, yet fail to provide them any real sources of energy.

Bill
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 2:04 pm

Ha ha, heeeeeerrreess goofy. Goofy hasn’t bothered to read/or denies the IPCC’s Paris Statement whereby they state that between 1918-2018 there has been no rise in extreme weather, less droughts, floods and fires, less violent storms such as tornados, cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons et freekin cet….and that they are less violent, there is less storm-fire-flood damage and less people killed and dispossessed. And this trend continues….according to the IPCC in the Paris Statement.
What’s more, they state the temps are less extreme with both lows and highs…and that the rise in global temps over that time frame are from less extreme lows, and that’s where they get their net gain in average temp…because the lows are less extreme. According to the IPCC, in the Paris Statement. .
. Goofy has allied himself to the Marxist fake news press and girly-man mindset and is what they themselves call everyone who rebuffs the globalist IPCC narrative…ironically…he is a “science denier.”

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 2:53 pm

25 years? Is that the length of your record? You realize that Earth history goes back further than that? Weellllll, maybe you dont.

Rick C
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 8:27 pm

Well you certainly know how to get a rise out of the WUWT followers. I have been telling my kids and now grand kids about my experience. When I was young, winters were colder, snow was deeper, summers were hotter, rain was wetter, wind was stronger, lightning was brighter and thunder was louder. Today’s weather is much milder than it used to be. None of my kids or grand kids have any idea how tough it used to be. They haven’t had to walk 3 miles to school barefoot through snow and uphill both ways like we did.

Last edited 3 months ago by Rick C
AngryScotonFraggleRock
Reply to  Rick C
January 4, 2021 1:43 am

Luxury – we had to crawl, in shorts, uphill to school, both ways, and then climb even higher to get a bottle of milk…

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2021 11:51 pm

I have weather records, going back to 1970 odd.

Do you remember the 1975-1976 drought? Two dry summers, not one. And 1976 was incredibly hot, incredibly dry for 5 months.

Have you looked at the rainfall records for autumn 1976? Until the last couple of years, the wettest three months by a mile.

Do you remember the winters of 1988-1990? They nearly sent the european winter sports industry belly up! Massive great high pressures sat over the entire continent for weeks on end. My ski company CEO boss asked me whether I thought ‘global warming’ was happening. Not surprising. I said: ‘it’s warming, but things are one hell of a lot more complicated than people are making out….’

Do you remember December 1990? Masses of snow in early December coming to the French Alps, everyone breathed a great sigh of relief. Back to normal.

Things have got warmer, but so what? Show me the evidence that we had 2000 years of uniform temperatures, rainfall etc etc. You can’t, because Britain never had climate stability, it was always changing. Always.

Did ice fairs take place on the Thames in 1100AD? Of course they didn’t. Why not? Folks like you say our weather now is abnormal. If normality was ice fairs for 1000 years, why doesn’t the evidence for them exist? Weather now is within the normal variability of UK climate. It may be different to 40 years ago, but so what? Ice fairs on the Thames are within the normal variability of UK climate too.

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
January 4, 2021 1:57 am

In your dreams, Griffiepoo. Nowhere else.

John Endicott
Reply to  griff
January 4, 2021 7:54 am

25 years? Bwahahahaha, Griff that’s just weather, you need at least 30 years of weather data before you can call it climate.

Also, of course the UK climate has changed. That’s what climate does. It’s been doing it since time began and will continue doing it long after you are 6 feet under. It would be more shocking if the climate didn’t change.

Hans Erren
January 3, 2021 10:27 am

An analysis of Dutch temperatures shows a strong influence of less air pollution in the last decades
comment image
https://klimaatgek.nl/wordpress/2020/12/01/de-zon-en-de-opwarming-van-nederland/

Greg
Reply to  Hans Erren
January 3, 2021 12:28 pm

Look interesting. Shame it’s not in English.

michel
Reply to  Greg
January 4, 2021 12:28 am

It is a rather long paper, but the conclusions at the end are:

<blockquote>De toename van de temperatuur in ons land tussen 1980 en 2019 kan dus voor 70% verklaard worden door de toename van het binnenvallend zonlicht.

Blijft over een ‘gat’ van 0,5 °C dat niet verklaard kan worden door toename van de instraling. Mogelijke oorzaken zijn toename van langgolvige instraling als gevolg van het gestegen atmosferisch CO2-gehalte (broeikaseffect), het Urban Heat Island effect als gevolg van de toegenomen verstedelijking, veranderde luchtcirculatie (zie hier) en wellicht nog enkele andere tot nu toe onbekende factoren.</blockquote>

Quick rough translation:

<i>The increase in temperature of our country between 1980 and 2019 can 70% be explained by the increase in sunlight falling on it.

There remains a gap of 0.5C that cannot be explained by the rise in incoming sunlight. Probable causes are increase from long wave radiation as a consequences of a rise in atmospheric CO2,…[urban heat island effect]…, changes in air circulation and probably a few other factors not presently known.</i>

I have not read it all carefully owing to length, but it looks like a pretty thorough and detailed analysis.

donald penman
Reply to  Greg
January 4, 2021 12:57 am

Don’t you have translate option?

ATheoK
Reply to  Hans Erren
January 3, 2021 7:12 pm

Joules per square centimeter?

Besides Joules being a function of work when converted to temperature they convert to miniscule fractions of a degree Celsius…

NOAA has tried that scam several times.

Last edited 3 months ago by ATheoK
Greg
Reply to  ATheoK
January 4, 2021 1:54 am

Joule is the unit of energy not “a function of work”. You can expend energy in doing work but that is not where the definition of joule comes from.

Energy is the integral of power , so incoming radiation ( W/m^2) is summed to J/m^2 and can be compared to an increase in temperature of an area of the surface.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Greg
January 5, 2021 10:12 am

You’re getting in the weeds here, but a Joule is a function of work. It is defined as the energy expended in work. That is, in terms of “force x distance” which is work or “Newton x meters”.

To be honest watt, is defined as J/sec. So you would have (J/(sec x m^2)) or some other combination of time. Further work is required using time in order to convert that into a temperature.

matt
January 3, 2021 10:42 am

If you don’t like the weather in England wait a minute.

Greg
Reply to  matt
January 3, 2021 12:29 pm

I waited 20 years, then gave up !

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  matt
January 3, 2021 1:04 pm

Heck, that’s what we say here in New England- I didn’t know that phrase was stolen from the Brits.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2021 1:49 pm

That’s what we say here in Calgary but here it’s true because located so close to the mountains

john
January 3, 2021 10:47 am

But it’s so cold in Canada…

Updated list of elected Canadian politicians who left Canada during lockdown. https://mobile.twitter.com/cduhaime/status/1345749903868358660

🎶 Oh Can-a-da 🎶

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  john
January 3, 2021 1:48 pm

Makes me want to go into politics for the first time ever
What is good for the goose….

fred250
Reply to  john
January 3, 2021 1:50 pm

“But it’s so cold in Canada…”

Most certainly NOT WARMING in Canada

comment image

ATheoK
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 7:21 pm

No citrus trees or poinsettia landscaping in their future anytime soon.

Somebody should tell that dancing dress up crackpot.

2hotel9
January 3, 2021 11:05 am

Sure, sure, all this proves is that Globall Warmining is far sneakier and deceptive than previously thought!

ResourceGuy
January 3, 2021 11:15 am

Now where is that chart showing topping out in smoothed data…..
comment image

Better get used to it–there is more to come and mostly down in that long-forgotten shape called a cycle. Better buckle up. The real climate emergency is in how to confront cycle reality. Griff’s flooding meme is not enough to hide this truth a coming down the tracks.

Greg
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 3, 2021 12:31 pm

Sorry , RG, you are clearly using “uncorrected” data.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Greg
January 3, 2021 12:38 pm

They have not corrupted ARGO yet. The land is where they like to do their arts and crafts.

Bill
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 3, 2021 2:11 pm

I think ARGO is partially military isn’t it? In which case I would be shocked if they allowed it to be corrupted by the echo-vermin and their insane behavior.

ATheoK
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 3, 2021 7:33 pm

Except they deploy the ARGO buoys without certification as installed and the equipment goes for long periods without maintenance or cleaning…

ARGO doesn’t mind claiming laboratory levels of decimal place accuracy for their measurements.

ATheoK
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 3, 2021 7:28 pm

Aye ResourceGuy!
I remember the East coast hurricanes of the 1950s and 1960s.

Today’s snowflakes will have meltdowns when the weather cycle returns to strong West Atlantic hurricanes.

Long ago, Mother Nature proved that exact point to the Spanish ships loaded with looted cargoes of gold, silver and gems sunk along America’s East Coast.

Mike
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 3, 2021 9:14 pm

Not to mention that the 230 and the 65 year cycles are both at their peak. That’s why it’s warm at the moment and that’s why it will do nothing but cool starting perhaps a little later due to the lingering 250 cycle. Given both, it would be reasonable to expect a hovering of temps (at least in the north) (thank Christ!) for some years and then an ever increasing rate of (periodically interrupted) falling temperatures lasting many decades. Basically exactly as we are seeing now but in reverse. Michael Mann should hopefully live to see the start of it!

DeFries and 65 year cycles.JPG
Last edited 3 months ago by Mike
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike
January 4, 2021 7:21 am

“Michael Mann should hopefully live to see the start of it!”

Michael Mann has already said that if the temperatures cooled for a decade or two, it still wouldn’t invalidate Human-caused Climate Change.

Michael wants to get ahead of the curve and cover all his bases in case his predictions of increased temperatures don’t come about.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 4, 2021 8:31 am

If a decade of cooling cannot invalidate CAGW, what can? Or should we merely take Mann’s word for it?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 6, 2021 4:40 am

I’m certainly not taking Michael Mann’s word for anything, if that’s what you are thinking. I’m just repeating what he said.

Russ R.
January 3, 2021 11:23 am

The climate varies. That is the SCIENCE! It is obvious to anyone that looks at the evidence. We had several above average solar cycles, now we are back to a bit below average. The UK also removed a substantial amount of forested areas, and added a substantial amount of paved and developed properties. When it is cold they burn fuel to stay warm, and when it is hot they run air conditioning, both of which emits heat into the atmosphere. It does not take much to add a bit here and a bit there, and give the impression of warming that is due to the way we measure highs and lows, and average everything. What we care about is increases in severe weather, and variation in the ability to grow food. Neither one is concerning. And that is concerning to those that sow fear in the public in order to fund programs that do not benefit those paying for it.

Loydo
January 3, 2021 11:33 am

“No doubt we will get the usual hysteria from the Met Office about the “third warmest year on record”, “nine of the ten warmest years since 1990”, blah, blah!…warming stopped in 2006″

Willis is wrong, this place has become nothing but an anti-science, doubt-mongering echo-chamber and denialism workshop with a scant few fig leaves to cover the shame.

Hans Erren
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 11:38 am

Still no emergency nor crisis.

MarkW
Reply to  Hans Erren
January 3, 2021 12:57 pm

The better things get, the more bitter the alarmists get.
It’s almost as if all this good news shatters their self image as people who are saving the world from itself.

Last edited 3 months ago by MarkW
Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
January 3, 2021 9:25 pm

Mark, you and you’re echo-chamber buddies are being played like a fiddle and you don’t even realise it.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/04/18/how-climate-deniers-can-hide-the-incline/

Cherry-pick, distort, rinse and repeat. Sooo skeptical, lol.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 10:04 pm

YOU are a great display of how RABID AGW APOSTLES….

have absolute NO EVIDENCE for even the most basis farce of the AGW meme

Care to try, just once.

or will you cast EVEN MORE DOUBT on the whole AGW fallacy !!

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 10:05 pm

Tamino.. ROFLMAO..

You really sinking to the very bottom of the anti-science AGW sewer if you go there. !!

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 4, 2021 3:34 am

Cherry-pick, distort, rinse and repeat.”

Yep its all the AGW scum have to work with. !

But you love the taste of that scum, don’t you , Loy…..you just lap it up.

You poor PATHETIC science and evidence deprived nonce. !

(Better to cool down your personal attacks, it doesn’t help you and waste my time) SUNMOD

Last edited 3 months ago by Sunsettommy
2hotel9
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 11:44 am

Dry your tears! There is a sucker born every minute, so there will be plenty of idiots to listen to your childish doomcrying.

Climate believer
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 12:13 pm

“Willis is wrong, this place has become nothing but an anti-science, doubt-mongering echo-chamber and denialism workshop with a scant few fig leaves to cover the shame.”

… and a happy new year to you too.

So now it’s shameful to doubt, but we’re anti science. Start as you mean to go on.

Are you proposing fig leaf services?

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 12:36 pm

One would think evidence that human influence on the climate may not be as great or as harmful as they claim would be welcomed by alarmists, but it actually makes them very angry.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 3, 2021 8:08 pm

It’s traumatic to have one’s world view destroyed. Alarmists come here and their alarmist world view is destroyed, if they have any sense, and it upsets them that they got it so wrong. I think Loydo is suffering from too much reality when he comes here.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 12:56 pm

As usual, Loydo can’t be bothered to present actual data or arguments. Instead it relies on insults towards those who don’t worship as it does.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
January 3, 2021 1:48 pm

Not only that, but every thing it says is a manifest LIE….

…. and applies more to itself than normal people on this blog.

It has NO SCIENCE

It causes massive DOUBT about the AGW farce because of its inability to present any science

Its mind lives in a brain-washed echo-chamber

It DENIES that the current world climate is far cooler than for most of the last 10,000 years

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 1:31 pm

YOU are the MAIN PERSON who casts doubt on the AGW scam

Every time you are asked to produce evidence..

YOU HAVE NONE.

Clueless climate clowns like YOU, are one of the best weapons against the AGW farce.

Tell us what we DENY that you have solid scientific proof for. (cue another empty response)

Only person here in DENIAL is you, who DENIES that climate changes NATURALLY and always has.

YOU are the one TOTALLY INCAPABLE of producing even one tiny iota of scientific proof to back up anything you say.

YOU are the one that is the ANTI or NON-science.. YOU are a scientific ABYSS.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 1:35 pm

Would you like to, JUST ONCE , try to produce evidence for the very basis of the AGW farce?

Or will you continue to PROVE that the whole AGW edifice is based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Talk about doubt-mongering…. you do it every time you run away from producing evidence.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

philincalifornia
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 2:27 am

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?”

Several years ago, an Australian climate “scientist” was called into a hearing by a political panel and asked that same question’
.
His response was to prattle on about Arrhenius (1896). I’ll see if I can find it. I won’t bother with Google though.

Loydo probably can’t figure out why this is amusing.

Hotscot
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 4, 2021 4:22 am

Arrhenius withdrew his claim of CO2 derived warming in 1906.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Hotscot
January 4, 2021 8:39 am

Unlike Mann, Jones et al., Arrhenius was a real scientist and a man of integrity. His venture into Climatology was an uncharacteristic blunder in an otherwise brilliant career.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Hotscot
January 4, 2021 9:10 am

Well yeah, but it more supports my point than detracts from it:

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/one-nations-malcolm-roberts-asks-chief-scientist-for-proof-humans-cause-climate-change-20161021-gs7d5f.html

Not the best report but good enough.

Dr Finkel said it was established in 1896 that the more CO₂ in the atmosphere, the more heat was trapped.

Bill
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 2:31 pm

And yet almost everyone here is either a scientist and/or a well read person with a fully functioning brain. Almost everyone. Some find the need to use terms and ideas of propagandists to make their dubious points.
The rest of us laugh at them. Go back to Goofy-tube junior, this is a site for adults, you wont like it here, you will become angry and confused….back at Goofy-tube, your safe space, your “opinions” are the same as all the other angry children. Angry children like Greta…who cannot answer the simplest questions re climate change, except to bleat climate clichés and platitudes, and who has climate activists at hand always who she hands questions over to, referring to them as experts…because she has no bloody idea at all.
And, sadly is clearly deranged. Shame on those who use such a person as their propaganda pinup girl.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 4:56 pm

Loydo, care to back that ridiculous statement with actual data rather than displaying your diarrhea of the mouth syndrome as you do on a regular basis?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 3, 2021 8:11 pm

Loydo doesn’t have any pertinent data.

Rockwa
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 5:06 pm

C’mon Loydo. The challenge is out there. Cite just one paper. How hard can it be? You made the claim, now back it up. Or are you going to continue to be a spineless wonder?

ATheoK
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 7:36 pm

Typical alarmist trollop response; ignore the data, attack the people.

Utter fail font of nonsense, lolly.

Lrp
Reply to  Loydo
January 3, 2021 10:24 pm

You’re just bitching again, it’s become your nature. It must be cyclone weather coming in NE Queensland right now.

RelPerm
January 3, 2021 12:00 pm

Hottest vs Coldest Graph

Why is Hot blue and Cold red?

Odd color scheme!

fred250
Reply to  RelPerm
January 3, 2021 1:51 pm

HOT

comment image

NOT HOT

comment image

RelPerm
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 5:29 pm

OK, I agree blue is a good color on HOT

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RelPerm
January 4, 2021 7:27 am

Funny! 🙂

Bill
Reply to  RelPerm
January 3, 2021 2:34 pm

Maybe it refers to the Republican model V the Democrat model?

[please fix the cached misspelling of your email address and skip the dreaded moderation filter-mod]

Reply to  RelPerm
January 3, 2021 3:18 pm

I think it’s the default colour scheme for a chart created in MS Office. It can be changed manually, or by a Theme change.

ATheoK
Reply to  RelPerm
January 3, 2021 7:50 pm

It is a very clear and excellent graph.

The graph colors are not used to incite fear, unlike so many false temperature depictions by those trying to cause fear.

RelPerm
January 3, 2021 12:08 pm

Pre satellite era average temperatures to hundredths of a degree!! What is uncertainty window?, please.

ATheoK
Reply to  RelPerm
January 3, 2021 7:52 pm

Just what graph are you referring to?

RelPerm
Reply to  ATheoK
January 4, 2021 9:35 pm

My comment on average temperature being in hundredths of a degree was referring to the last table, ranking average temperature by year.

It’s easy to calculate an average temperature to a hundredth or thousandth or millionth of a degree. I just think people should put more thought on the appropriate significant digit and uncertainty. When hundredths of a degree are used as significant digit for ranking 1700’s, 1800’s, 1900’s, and even 2000’s average temperature data, I raise my eyebrow… 💁🏾

Jim Gorman
Reply to  RelPerm
January 5, 2021 10:21 am

Why is this so hard for even scientists to understand. Is this not taught in Climate Science curricula? I thought chemistry and physics labs would be part of a CliSci degree.

Greg
January 3, 2021 12:18 pm

So how come your “10 year running mean” goes from 1990 to 2020 , the full range of your graph? Maybe you are doing Mannian padding or an stock market trader’s trailing average.

In any case a running mean is a total distortion of the data. They often show a dip when there is a peak in the data. There was clearly a dip between 2008 and 2014 which is not present in your runny mean.

Eyeballing the annual data, I’d say you’d probably get a negative trend from 1998 to present, so there may be something to it. You just make a piss-poor way of making the point.

Last edited 3 months ago by Greg
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Greg
January 5, 2021 10:31 am

Averages hide so much information it simply is not funny. They cover up variations in data, I.e. statistical variance that is needed to properly evaluate what is happening. In essence, multi year averages are a poor man’s Fourier analysis of insufficient data to try and determine long term cycles.

Robber
January 3, 2021 12:54 pm

How on earth are the Brits surviving in all that heat? Better invade Scotland.

fred250
Reply to  Robber
January 3, 2021 2:31 pm

Ahhh Scotland..

Land of the wind turbine subsidy !!

Derg
January 3, 2021 1:19 pm

I try to use a 10 year 1 month running average…for more accuracy. 30% of the time!

Matthew Sykes
January 3, 2021 1:20 pm

If you look at the seasons, all the warming is from autumn and winter. Summer and spring is dead flat.

So its a big win for Britain, less cold = less deaths and less heating fuel

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 3, 2021 1:42 pm

Isn’t this why so many on here attack the very idea of a single average temp for the entire planet as utterly meaningless?

Even those here who do attribute at least some of the moderate warming over the previous 40 years to CO2 increase also point out that it is night temps and winter temps that have risen with essentially no change or even reductions to daytime and summer highs?

Isn’t this the proper path of argument?

Yes, there has been moderate warming for ~4 decades.

No, it is in no way certain what is responsible for this but CO2 remains a possibility for at least some of it.

Regardless, what the actual data shows is milder winters and warmer nights as being responsible for this increasing average, neither of which has the slightest downside for humans or the planet?

Summer arctic sea ice has unarguably decreased over those 40 years and yet it’s also unarguable that polar bears are thriving regardless (Griff shout out)

As a New Years resolution I plan to try and be less shouty, if that is the right word, and argue rationally even with the deranged, talking around them in effect

fred250
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 3, 2021 4:19 pm

“Yes, there has been moderate warming for ~4 decades.”

Maybe not.. It looks like it could be due to a change in methodology.

See my post further down.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 3, 2021 8:15 pm

It’s difficult to argue with the deranged! You can tell them about it, but you can’t understand it for them. 🙂

January 3, 2021 1:21 pm

The rate of change is more interesting as there are 2C changes in the average from year to year, which extrapolated would be 200C per century! I’m pointing this out only because linear extrapolation is what all predictions of the future climate are like.

The DomeC ice cores have an average rate of change statistically the same as the current rate of change and the peak rate seen in the ice cores well exceeds the current rate over similar time periods. Making this comparison doesn’t serve the narrative, so its conveniently ignored.

http://www.palisad.com/co2/ic/dc_dt.png

This shows the average change in temperature from sample to sample when integrated across a minimum of 50 years. For older samples, the data doesn’t have enough temporal resolution, so the 50 year average becomes a longer and longer term average. It should be clear that shorter term averages have much larger dT than longer term averages.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 3, 2021 1:29 pm

So is the chart above homogenized ?

I note that it does not show any warming in the 30s the way raw US data charts show

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 3, 2021 2:41 pm

Pat,

The data is from an ice core where homogenization is irrelvant. BTW, how can you even discern the 30’s? Each small tic along the X axis is 2K years and there’s 40 data samples per tic.

Here’s the last 50k years and you can see a warming early in the 20’th century. Keep in mind that this represents the delta average T from one 50 year block of time to the next. Incoming samples are variable length from about 20 year to 100 year averages over this time period which are combined and/or redistributed to result in uniform 50 year averages by assuming a linear change from one sample to the next.

http://www.palisad.com/co2/ic/dc_dt_20k.png

The point I’m making is that the current multi-decade trend is not at all unusual when compared to natural variablity.

Gordon A. Dressler
January 3, 2021 1:32 pm

From the above article by Paul Homewood: “However this will be no more than an attempt to cover up the highly inconvenient truth, which is that warming stopped in 2006. The 10-year running average shows this clearly.”

Sorry, but one can cannot conclude anything from looking at a 10-year running average over the span of 14 years (i.e., from 2006 to 2020). The sampling interval is just far too short (less than twice the averaging period). This is basic statistics.

Also, just examine the article’s first graph (“CET Series 1659-2020”) closely: one could equally claim that global warming “stopped” based on 14-year (or longer) spans starting ca. 1950, ca. 1900, ca. 1870, ca. 1830, etc.

Yet a simple linear curve fit over the full range of data in this graph would reveal a positive slope . . . that is, there has been an overall global warming trend (albeit with intermediate “pauses”) from 1750 up to 2020.

Bottom line, there is no need to resort to the same data “misrepresentation”/”massaging” techniques used by AGW/CAGW alarmists to show that “climate change”, whatever that actually means, is related to human activities.

And do I really need to point out the unreliability of air temperature data measurements made for “Central England” prior to, oh let’s say, 1750, given that somewhat accurate thermometers with reading scales were not produced until the early 1700’s.

fred250
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 3, 2021 2:58 pm

Problem with CET is that a lot of the sites used have been gradually affected by urban expansion and/or density increases

If you look at a site that is not affected by UHI, you can see the difference.

comment image

Valentia Observatory is still basically a pristine climate site.

comment image

One can browse some of the issues with CET stations by tracking through “Tallboy’s” blog

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/wmo03609-mumbles-head/

(Just check at the bottom of each post to WMO links)

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 3:35 pm

fred250, all valid points. Thank you.

I will just observe that the linear fit of the Valentia Observatory temperature date still has a slope indicating warming, albeit significantly less than the CET-Parker et al 1992 data.

fred250
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 3, 2021 5:37 pm

see my post at 3:52pm below, Gordon

seems CET may not be a “consistent” record, but had large changes in methodology around the mid 1970s, just where that warming period starts to happen.

John Finn
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 8:15 am

1991-2020 Trend for Valentia is 0.18 deg per decade.

Very similar to CET trend.

fred250
January 3, 2021 2:02 pm

The rise in temperature in the latter part of the CET graph is mainly in Autumn and Winter

comment image

With expanding urban heating and movements of sites to airports….. this is to be expected.

There is absolutely NO evidence of any warming by atmospheric CO2, which would be more obvious in summer Summer shows no warming.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Loydo
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 12:33 am

You idiot. You might want to go to this “anti-science sewer” before making an even bigger fool of yourself.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/04/18/how-climate-deniers-can-hide-the-incline/

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 4, 2021 3:29 am

Poor sewer-dweller, Loy

You are STILL an IGNORANT and EMPTY sock-muppet.

Enjoying having Tamino’s hand up your **** manipulating your prattle ???

And posting totally FRAUDULENT graphs as well.

Its all you have, Loy….. and its not ever related to actual science.

Very slight warming since the COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 YEARS

THANK GOODNESS. !!

Try again, LOSER

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 4, 2021 3:47 am

Snipped!

You are wasting my time cleaning up your personal attacks

Sunmod

Last edited 3 months ago by Sunsettommy
ren
January 3, 2021 2:42 pm
fred250
January 3, 2021 3:52 pm

Interesting !!!

Apparently the Met Office has changed the way CET is calculated since about 1974

comment image

http://www.climate-uk.com/page5.html

I draw your attention to the note that says..

Work is underway to produce a continuation of the original CET series, maintaining Manley’s aims and methods. A provisional version is available by clicking on the link, top left”

I have taken that data and graphed it.

comment image

Notice what happens to that rise around 1970.

IT SEEMS THAT RISE IS BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN METHODOLOGY !!

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
taxed
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 5:12 pm

Am convinced that any warming during the winter season here in England over recent years has largely been weather driven by changes in the amount of northern blocking happening during the winter. Because that’s what would explain why there has been very little signs of warming in my 44 year recording of the date of the first snow of winter.

RelPerm
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 5:39 pm

I’d like to see what happens to that rise around 1970, but your graph starts at 1971.

fred250
Reply to  RelPerm
January 3, 2021 7:57 pm

Looks to me like the main climb in the Met’s version of CET goes from 1974-2000

The data on the link only started in 1971 because it is intended as a continuation after the Manley reconstruction.

fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 8:00 pm

“Notice what happens to that rise around 1970.”

I meant to write a “around 1970 – 2000” which is very obvious on the Met version of CET.

Mr. Lee
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 9:02 pm

Changing methodolgy is bad science but good bureaucracy.

John Finn
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 9:33 am

Notice what happens to that rise around 1970.

What rise around 1970? This data only starts at around 1970 and there’s nothing particularly unusual in the CET data.

The link you refer to includes a dataset which was compiled by Philip Eden who passed away in 2018. Philip worked as a journalist for the Daily Telegraph for many years. The Eden data series is virtually the same as the CET. The difference in the annual means is +/- 0.1 deg at most while the trends since 1970 are very similar.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 6:59 pm

Compare the 30 year averages of Philip Eden’s CET with the Met Office version. They’re almost identical, and the MO is consistently slightly cooler than your preferred version.

Average 71-00:
climate-uk: 9.76°C, Met Office: 9.74°C

Average 81-10:
climate-uk: 10.01°C, Met Office: 9.97°C

Warming between the two periods:
climate-uk: 0.25°C, Met Office: 0.23°C

Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
January 4, 2021 7:08 pm

Trend 1971 – 2014
climate-uk: 0.232°C / decade, Met Office: 0.222°C / decade

TheFinalNail
January 3, 2021 5:38 pm

“However this will be no more than an attempt to cover up the highly inconvenient truth, which is that warming stopped in 2006.”
__________

Before making the above rash statement perhaps Mr Homewood should have taken a moment to run a linear trend from 2006 through the CET data he shows in fig. 1. According to Excel, there is a linear warming rate of +0.30 C/dec in CET from 2006 to 2020; the same as the UAH global rate over that period. That compares to a rate of +0.16 C/dec in CET over the 30 year period from 1991 to 2020. Hardly what you would call a ‘stop’ to the warming. (Apologies if anyone has already mentioned this, I haven’t had time to read through all the comments.)

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 3, 2021 8:02 pm

So you agree that there is FIVE TIMES less warming trend since 2006

Thanks rusty.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 3:48 am

As stated above, the warming rate in CET over the 15 years 2006-20 is +0.30 C/dec; nearly twice as fast as the 30 year rate (1991-2020) over the same series (+0.16 C/dec). Fred interprets this as representing “five times less warming trend since 2006”. Fred says he is a skeptic.

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 4, 2021 4:16 am

The rate from 1997 to 2020 is ZERO and as Ulric’s graphs shows, the rise before that, was due to an increase in SUNSHINE hours

You seem to have nearly as much difficulty as loy-dumb with basic FACTS

So sad that you choose to make such a fool of yourself every time you post. !

Maybe you can do better if you actually try to engage your feeble mind first !

fred250
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 4, 2021 4:21 am

Tell me, loy’s other sock, when are you moving to Siberia to escape the HUGE warming of a fraction of a degree since the coldest period in 10,000 years?

We are all waiting,

…. just like we are waiting for evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

““five times less warming trend since 2006””

Ok… 5.33 times less much warming.. I should have been more precise.

And of course NO WARMING AT ALL since 1997.

RickWill
January 3, 2021 5:41 pm

Just speculating here but there appears to be a process change in early 1990s. Likely cause is movement to faster response electronic instruments instead of manually read instruments.

Ulric Lyons
January 3, 2021 6:35 pm

“Perhaps the best clue we have is to compare the warmest years. Whilst 2014 was the hottest at 10.95C, the year of 1949 was not far behind with 10.65C. Go back further, and we see years such as 1733, 1779 and 1834, all above 10.4C.
This suggests that most of the warming seen in the last three decades is related to weather, rather than climate change.”

This suggests that hot events happen irrespective of climate change, because they are discretely solar forced. The UK should be warmer from 1995 with the warm AMO phase, but the CET series has a notable uplift from 1988 ahead of the AMO warming, with likely UHI contributions, and possibly changes in the station locations used for CET.
But if the sunshine hours data is bona fide, that would have played a major role:

comment image

Chris Wright
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
January 4, 2021 4:26 am

That’s very interesting. The trend shows an increase of about 11%. It would also be interesting to know how much warming that would create.
During this period the air has become much cleaner (I did actually experience the London smog in the sixties, it really was bad). Quite possibly cleaner air will cause increased sunshine:
Cleaner air -> reduced air particles -> reduced clouds -> increased sunshine duration
The same effect would apply globally, particularly in the West.
It would be a delicious irony if much of that terrifying global warming was caused by green clean air acts!
Chris

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Chris Wright
January 4, 2021 7:45 pm

Have a look at sunshine hours seasonally, it’s mostly increased in winter, some in spring and autumn, and nothing in summer.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series

ATheoK
January 3, 2021 6:41 pm

And, as was predicted, the “Pause” returns!

Loydo
Reply to  ATheoK
January 4, 2021 12:47 am

Ah stop it. As TheFinalNail posted above there is a rising trend, the same as for the UHA series so your “prediction” was wrong and so is Paul Homewood. One more of endless list of failed ‘its gunna cool soon’ predictions and one more disinformative post echoed here at D-Central.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 4, 2021 3:55 am

Since 1997 ZERO TREND…

comment image

Rise before that to do with MORE SUNSHINE.. see sunshine graph below..

…. almost perfect match.

Why is basic comprehension of anything related to data or science SO DIFFICULT for you ???

Are you really that bereft of rational thought ??????

You KNOW the slight rise around 1988 has nothing to do with CO2, don’t you, loser.

If you think it is , then produce some evidence.

Start with the very basics….

Or just continue to CAST DOUBT on the whole AGW facade…

…….by showing everybody that THERE REALLY ISN’T ANY EVIDENCE.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

John
January 3, 2021 7:50 pm

Hi Paul,
maybe you should also show the annual summer mean temperature graph for the whole record.
My version here vs NASA sunspot graph. I annotate years 1730, 1780 and 2000 which appear to have similar summer temperatures.
&ltcomment image>
comment image
Cheers and thanks for this post.
PS I hope my link shows in my comment

fred250
January 3, 2021 8:55 pm

Downloaded CET monthly from MET

If you go from 1997 – 2020, leaving off the January (coldest month at both ends so you don’t have a mis-matched cycle….. we don’t have January 2021 yet)

you get this….

comment image

fred250
January 3, 2021 10:34 pm

If we look at yearly averages, rather than 10 year running mean, we see the jump at the end actually happened in 1988.

Would be interesting to know what cause that step-like change.

comment image

fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 3, 2021 10:51 pm

I think that when you look at Ulrics graph in his 6:35pm post ..

… the one on hours of sunshine.

You can see the cause exactly

And its absolutely NOTHING to do with atmospheric CO2

January 4, 2021 2:33 am

With a sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event brewing above the Arctic, the UK’s and northern hemisphere’s winter will get colder yet:

https://watchers.news/2020/12/23/major-sudden-stratospheric-warming-january-2021/

Bellman
January 4, 2021 5:55 am

Interestingly, the trend in CET from 2006 to 2020 inclusive is around 3°C / century. I’m surprised there haven’t been more articles worry about these 15 years of rapid warming.

wuwt20200104a.png
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
January 4, 2021 6:00 am

Of course, the reason this doesn’t mean anything is the same reason all the “7 years of cooling” or “15 years of pause” articles are misleading. You have to look at the trend lines in context.

comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by Bellman
fred250
Reply to  Bellman
January 4, 2021 11:59 am

“around 3°C / century”

Only a complete mathematical imbecile extrapolates dates out past the data they are using.

Bellman
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 6:27 pm

Just as well I didn’t do that then. I think my second graph makes it clear I’m not extrapolating anything except the specified ranges.

And if you are only complaining about the use of a per century scale, fine lets call it about 0.3°C / decade, or an increase of 0.45°C over the 15 years of the data. But I’d hope you’d be just as critical of, say, Lord Monckton’s use of a per century to describe 7 years of cooling.

comment image

mkelly
January 4, 2021 6:53 am

We have been told continually that the average earth temperature is 15 C. It seems as though Paul has shown that England is below average.

Bellman
January 4, 2021 6:54 am

Perhaps the best clue we have is to compare the warmest years.

This suggests that most of the warming seen in the last three decades is related to weather, rather than climate change.

A better way would be to look at all the data. Between 1990 and 2020 the trend is 1.2°C / century, and is not statistically significant.

But if you look over longer periods the rise becomes more significant. Over the last 50 years the warming rate has been 2.2°C / century, and looks significant.

The claim here seems to be both that it’s impossible to be certain that any warming wasn’t just the result of random weather events, and that there’s some significance to the lack of warming over the last couple of decades.

January 4, 2021 8:24 am

The CET start date was 1659 the longest temperature record in the world, no cherry picking. Since 1659 the temperature has risen 1.1DegC over 361 years. That is 0.03DegC per decade. Considering the start of the series was during the Little Ice Age it is natural for temperatures to rise when the recovery started in the 1740’s. A perfectly natural situation.

TonyG
January 4, 2021 8:43 am

Why is it that so many seem to want us back to the “optimum” climate of the LIA?

Steve Z
Reply to  TonyG
January 4, 2021 11:14 am

From the graph of the coldest and warmest monthly averages over the past 30 years, we see that there is the most inter-year variation in December, and the least inter-year variation in the summer months.

If absorption of infra-red radiation by CO2 was the driver for climate, one would expect that temperatures would rise most in the summer, during the time of maximum insolation. However, the largest inter-year variation actually occurred in December, the month of minimum insolation in England.

England has an unusually temperate climate for being located above 50 degrees north latitude, with relatively low seasonal variation in temperature (relatively mild winters and cool summers). At a comparable latitude, Edmonton Canada (for example) has much colder winters and somewhat warmer summers.

The climate in England is principally driven by the Gulf Stream, responsible for the mostly mild, wet winters, with prevailing winds from the southwest. Occasionally, if the jet stream dips south of England during winter (or a strong anticyclone over Scandinavia), winds out of the north can bring cold temperatures and/or snow from the Arctic to England, which can account for the sharp variation in December temperatures.

Any lasting, permanent warming in England would probably be due to rising temperatures over the nearby Atlantic (which would bring warmer air to England) rather than increased CO2, while most of the short-term variations are due to shifts in the jet stream, particularly in winter.

Rusty
January 4, 2021 8:49 am

How much has the UK population increased in the last 30 years? How much more land has been tarmacked over?

%d bloggers like this: