New report: Global Warming stopped 16 years ago

[Peter1469]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

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.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29IQd2Iev
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)

[hanger4]

You meen Al Gore will become even more insignificant than he already is ??

[Peter1469]

Maybe his portfolio will stop growing....

[Trinnity]

BTW, I think it's gonna be a cold winter this year. Two mild ones behinds us and I've never ever seen so many acorns on the ground. Heavy bearing persimmons, and other wild fruits. <bracing>

[Captain Obvious]

Caterpillars are fuzzy around my place.

[Chris]

A few years ago, another forum, largely liberal, I reported Judith Curry's pointing out BEST data showed 12 years of virtually flat temps. The libs jumped all over her, saying she was unqualified and making things up. They cited Richard A. Muller as shooting her down as a crank. Turned out she is a more than qualified climatologist, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee, awarded by the American Meteorological Society, and, at the time, co-chair of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project with none other than Muller who had actually praised her work, said it was true, and only cautioned, along with some other climatologists, that they should wait 15 years to make a determination.

It's now 16 years.

The latest Durban Conference on Climate Change practically told the climate alarmists to take a hike.

While there's no denying man has some effect, the sky is simply not falling.

This is what happens when people depend on models for their data. Models are only metaphors.

[Peter1469]

Right, computer models are only as strong as the data entered into them. Even Mann admits that the models are flawed. Well if they are flawed why are you saying that they are correct?

[Captain Obvious]

Right, computer models are only as strong as the data entered into them. Even Mann admits that the models are flawed. Well if they are flawed why are you saying that they are correct?

It's why they're models - they're projections, estimations.

If the science were absolute, it would be fact.

[Chris]

Right, computer models are only as strong as the data entered into them. Even Mann admits that the models are flawed. Well if they are flawed why are you saying that they are correct?

That and the hypotheses they represent and test, and the exaggerations of the media!

[head of joaquin]

It's always fun to watch tea baggers attempt science by misreading newpaper articles.

[Mister D]

It's always fun to watch tea baggers attempt science by misreading newpaper articles.

Care to elaborate?

[Trinnity]

AGW is a political agenda, that's all. Even the left has quit talking about it.

[Chris]

It's always fun to watch tea baggers attempt science by misreading newpaper articles.

Did you have an argument, or just meaningless memes?

[head of joaquin]

Care to elaborate?


Yeah, reading an article from a newspaper isn't science, especially if the article doesn't say what you say it said.

The scientific illiteracy of conservatives is at the point that it's hard to even explain basic math to them.

[head of joaquin]

Did you have an argument, or just meaningless memes?

Actually the OP is a meme without an argument.

1. Newspaper articles aren't science.

2. The OP pretends that an article is science.

3. The article doesn't say what the poster said it said.

Is that good enough for ya? Another teabagger trash thread.

I guess you didn't even bother to read the article or the comments. The article has been debunked.


This article is a complete misrepresentation of the data collected by the Met Office¿s Hadley Centre. The Met office has refuted the claims this article has made and accuses its backers of cherry picking data to meet their politically motivated agenda. In effect a blatant lie. Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and the temperature will continue to rise as humans continue to release CO2 into the atmosphere unabated. Dr. Jones is in agreement. Dr.Curry's claims are flawed and incorrect.

It's almost as if the OP were lying on purpose.

[Chris]

Actually the OP is a meme without an argument.

1. Newspaper articles aren't science.

2. The OP pretends that an article is science.

3. The article doesn't say what the poster said it said.

Is that good enough for ya? Another teabagger trash thread.

I guess you didn't even bother to read the article or the comments. The article has been debunked.


This article is a complete misrepresentation of the data collected by the Met Office¿s Hadley Centre. The Met office has refuted the claims this article has made and accuses its backers of cherry picking data to meet their politically motivated agenda. In effect a blatant lie. Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and the temperature will continue to rise as humans continue to release CO2 into the atmosphere unabated. Dr. Jones is in agreement. Dr.Curry's claims are flawed and incorrect.

It's almost as if the OP were lying on purpose.

1 Learn what meme means.

2 The OP reported science.

3 You would need to read the article to know what it says.


Is that good enough for ya?

Where's your argument, you know, facts and logic--they seem to escape your post.


This article is a complete misrepresentation...

Where'd you get that, a newspaper?


It's almost as if the OP were lying on purpose.

Oh, boy, another argument that rests on it's so because I believe it's so.


Endless troll.

[head of joaquin]

1 Learn what meme means.

2 The OP reported science.

3 You would need to read the article to know what it says.



Where's your argument, you know, facts and logic--they seem to escape your post.



Where'd you get that, a newspaper?



Oh, boy, another argument that rests on it's so because I believe it's so.


Endless troll.

Jesus, you've been owned and this is the best you can do.

The article was debunked. You're going to have to get a new one from a rightwing website. Sorry to give you more work, but you teabaggers need something to do.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/15/fox-falls-for-tabloid-science/190630

NEXT!

[Chris]

Jesus, you've been owned and this is the best you can do.

The article was debunked. You're going to have to get a new one from a rightwing website. Sorry to give you more work, but you teabaggers need something to do.

Where's your argument, facts and logic, rather than constant trolling.

[Chris]

And here, ladies and gents, is what's left of global warming er cooling er change:


Over at Science Blogs, Greg Laden is reporting that Penn State climatologist Michael Mann is suing the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the National Review for refusing to apologize for comparing him in a blog post to child molester Jerry Sandusky. In the original post on CEI's Opermarket website apparently read:


“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”

Harsh, indeed. That offending line has since been removed from the post, with a disclosure noting "Two inappropriate sentences that originally appeared in this post have been removed by the editor." National Review (NR) is being sued because NR contributor Mark Steyn cited the CEI post over at NR's The Corner blog. For what it's worth, Steyn did write:


Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does...

However Steyn did add:


... but he has a point.

...

@ Hockeystick Climatologist Michael Mann Sues Competitive Enterprise Institute and national review for Defamation (http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/10/23/hockeystick-climatologist-michael-mann-sues-competitive-enterprise-institute-and-national-review-for-defamation/)

[Peter1469]

He will be paying his lawyers a lot of money to lose....

[Reality1st]

I guess it is not so strange that the bamboozled and deluded AGW deniers would fall for more distorted pseudo-science and lies from the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry. David Rose and the Daily Mail are jokes when it comes to journalistic integrity. Cherry-picking, bogus charts and the easily debunked lies only fool the ignorant and the dimwitted who are politically motivated to fall for this junk.

Here's the facts - directly from the Met Office whose data Rose is supposedly using.


Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 (http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/)
14 10 2012
(not under copyright - free to reproduce)
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 (http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/).

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,

Here's a response to your questions. I've kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 "First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997."

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. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Q.2 "Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming."

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Q.3 "Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 – such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles – may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?"

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by "external forcings", such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.

———–

The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.

http://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/ranked_combined.png?w=510&h=362
Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.

[Chris]

I guess it is not so strange that the bamboozled and deluded AGW deniers would fall for more distorted pseudo-science and lies from the propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry. David Rose and the Daily Mail are jokes when it comes to journalistic integrity. Cherry-picking, bogus charts and the easily debunked lies only fool the ignorant and the dimwitted who are politically motivated to fall for this junk.

Only thing worst than a climate denier is a climate alarmist, and reality, you fit the bill to a T, since a sure sign of an alarmist is nothing but ad hom arguments. Just like truthmatters everything you disagree with is a lie.


Global Warming stopped 16 years ago

My guess is that is what you wish to debunk by pasting a blog piece in splendid bright colors.

Problem is the blog piece contradicts your rebuttal:


Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Basically, the blog piece agrees, temps have been for all intents and purposes flat for 16 years.

And again:


So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Lmao Chris, I don't think he read any of what he posted.

[Chris]

More...


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's one thing to attack a tabloid write, but what about actual scientists:


Has global warming really stopped, then?
The scientists the Daily Mail consulted actually disagreed on just what the new figures mean. They did agree, however, that the figures cast fresh doubt on computer models that have been used to project how quickly temperatures will rise in coming decades. "The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming," Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech university, tells the Daily Mail....

@ Did global warming stop 16 years ago? (http://theweek.com/article/index/234827/did-global-warming-stop-16-years-ago)

[Reality1st]

....nothing but ad hom arguments.....
LOLOLOLOL......wow, you really are quite retarded.....you would have to be to miss the complete rebuttal in my post of your worthless propaganda drivel - a rebuttal that comes from the Met Office, the very people the article was supposedly quoting....I mean that's pretty clueless and very moronic of you, little dude.....






Global Warming stopped 16 years ago
My guess is that is what you wish to debunk by pasting a blog piece in splendid bright colors.
Problem is the blog piece contradicts your rebuttal:
Problem is, Chrust, is that you're apparently too retarded to notice that the "blog piece" is actually the formal rebuttal of the Met Office to David Rose's twisted bit of lies and misinformation that was quoted in the OP and that was supposedly but not really based on information from the Met Office in the first place. The "blog" you try to denigrate is, in fact, formally called the "Met Office News Blog - official blog of the Met Office news team". The "piece" doesn't contradict "my rebuttal" you idiot, the announcement from the Met Office is the rebuttal.




Basically, the blog piece agrees, temps have been for all intents and purposes flat for 16 years.
That's your delusion but it has nothing to do with what the Met Office is actually saying here. They are saying quite clearly that the strong global warming trend that has been observed for some time now in the temperature records sometimes speeds up a bit and sometimes slows down a bit due to other climate factors. They are saying that if you cherry-pick your start and end dates for calculating a trend, you can show either a little or a lot of warming within the same general period of time. There has been a relatively short period recently in which the upward trend in temperatures has been a little less than it was just previously, what the Met office article called "reduced warming" and which you insanely misinterpret to mean 'no warming'. Of course the temperature records are only one of the many lines of scientific evidence indicating that the Earth is rapidly warming beyond the bounds of natural variation. For example, the melting of the mountain glaciers, the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.

What the Met Office is saying here very clearly (that you want to ignore) is that this lying article quoted in the OP "is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information"
and
Q.1 "First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997."

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. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

[Chris]

LOLOLOLOL......wow, you really are quite retarded.....you would have to be to miss the complete rebuttal in my post of your worthless propaganda drivel - a rebuttal that comes from the Met Office, the very people the article was supposedly quoting....I mean that's pretty clueless and very moronic of you, little dude.....





Problem is, Chrust, is that you're apparently too retarded to notice that the "blog piece" is actually the formal rebuttal of the Met Office to David Rose's twisted bit of lies and misinformation that was quoted in the OP and that was supposedly but not really based on information from the Met Office in the first place. The "blog" you try to denigrate is, in fact, formally called the "Met Office News Blog - official blog of the Met Office news team". The "piece" doesn't contradict "my rebuttal" you idiot, the announcement from the Met Office is the rebuttal.




That's your delusion

trolling, inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, off-topic comments

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/8250-Changes-to-The-Political-Forums:
Other Discussions are for more serious discussion and stricter moderation. The rules apply but, on the positive side, we will also require that all posts make a contribution be it information, question or argumentation, and on the negative side we will not allow trolling, inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, or off-topic comments.

[Peter1469]

Warmists are dangerous. They want you to live in a pre-industrial age and transfer your wealth to the 3rd world. If they can't be ignored they will have to be killed.

[Chris]

Warmists are dangerous. They want you to live in a pre-industrial age and transfer your wealth to the 3rd world. If they can't be ignored they will have to be killed.

Alarmists are dangerous as deniers imo. Both push political agendas and politicize science. And post #21 is just that, one blogger fighting with another blogger.

The question is not whether man contributes to climate change but how and how much and how much can be done about it. On the latter, we can't solve climate change, if there's a need, and over population and polution and poverty and hunger and peace and a gazillion other politicized problems. Where's the funding going to come from, a government heading over a fiscal cliff?

[Peter1469]

Alarmists are dangerous as deniers imo. Both push political agendas and politicize science. And post #21 is just that, one blogger fighting with another blogger.

The question is not whether man contributes to climate change but how and how much and how much can be done about it. On the latter, we can't solve climate change, if there's a need, and over population and polution and poverty and hunger and peace and a gazillion other politicized problems. Where's the funding going to come from, a government heading over a fiscal cliff?

Right.

Current science is working on fixes to fossil fuels. But the Warmists aren't interesting in advancement. They are interested in retrograde. They must be ignored.

[Reality1st]

Warmists are dangerous. They want you to live in a pre-industrial age and transfer your wealth to the 3rd world. If they can't be ignored they will have to be killed.
That's totally insane. You're completely clueless on this topic.

[Chris]

That's totally insane. You're completely clueless on this topic.

This is your second warning for trolling, inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, off-topic comments.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/8250-Changes-to-The-Political-Forums:
Other Discussions are for more serious discussion and stricter moderation. The rules apply but, on the positive side, we will also require that all posts make a contribution be it information, question or argumentation, and on the negative side we will not allow trolling, inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, or off-topic comments.

[Reality1st]

And post #21 is just that, one blogger fighting with another blogger.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or are you just insane? The material I posted in post #21 is the official response of the Met Office to the misinformation filled news article by David Rose that was supposedly based on information from the Met Office but actually distorted and twisted their info.

[Reality1st]

This is your second warning for trolling, inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, off-topic comments.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/8250-Changes-to-The-Political-Forums:

OK - lets go for broke.

Fuck you Chrust, you flaming retard!!!

[Chris]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or are you just insane? The material I posted in post #21 is the official response of the Met Office to the misinformation filled news article by David Rose that was supposedly based on information from the Met Office but actually distorted and twisted their info.

Infaction issued. See above several warnings.

[Chris]

Now back to your regularly scheduled program, what are the ramifications for this discovery on climate change?


...The Maya, who originated around 2600 B.C. in current day Southeastern Mexico, grew to prominence and size during the next three millennia, building temple step-pyramids and developing highly accurate astronomical and calendar systems. Why some of their larger cities were abandoned a thousand years ago is largely a mystery. Though weather shifts have been proposed previously, the stalagmite findings may offer the data that was lacking, said Douglas Kennett, the lead study author.

“We lucked into very good material to work with, to develop a very detailed climate record that is anchored chronologically in a way that other records haven’t been able to,” Kennett, a professor of anthropology at Penn State in State College, Pennsylvania, said in a phone interview....

...The scientists found that a wetter period corresponded with an increase in food production, and population growth, from 450 to 660 AD. During this time, cities such as Tikal, Copan and Caracol expanded, and the ancient civilization reached the pinnacle of its power, covering all of Guatemala, Belize, parts of Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico.

A drying period occurred during the next four centuries, punctuated by droughts. Mayan records show an increasing number of wars being fought in this period, and eventually larger cities gave way to smaller settlements, Kennett said....

“You have a loss of a large number of these polities,” he said. “You get this major reduction in the production of these stone monuments -- that’s a reflection of kings losing control and losing power at these primary centers.”

@ Climate Change May Have Doomed Ancient Maya, Study Finds (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-08/climate-change-may-have-doomed-ancient-maya-study-finds)

[Chris]

Another report on that @ What destroyed the Maya? We have a new clue, in the form of an ancient stalagmite (http://io9.com/5958954/what-destroyed-the-maya-a-stalagmite-from-beliz-could-finally-solve-this-ancient-mystery), with graphs!

http://i.snag.gy/VL2Xd.jpg


Kennett says if there's anything for people today to take away from his team's research, it's the relevancy it holds to contemporary issues. Obviously people are worried about global climate change, he explains, but often there's undue emphasis placed on abrupt changes — a sudden drought, perhaps, or a record-setting hurricane. "What we try to highlight in our paper," he explains, "is how climatic events can unfold on very long time scales," and that the way society responds to those changes can be crucial.

The full report can be found at Development and Disintegration of Maya Political Systems in Response to Climate Change (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6108/788).

[Peter1469]

That's totally insane. You're completely clueless on this topic.

Incorrect. You are insane.

[Cigar]

I've given up trying to argue Science with Republicans ... :rollseyes:

I mean look at it this way ... Todd Akin is one of the members who represents the Republican Party on the Committee On Science, Space and Technology. :rofl: enough said.

http://gop.science.house.gov/Members/Default.aspx

[Peter1469]

I've given up trying to argue Science with Republicans ... :rollseyes:

I mean look at it this way ... Todd Akin is one of the members who represents the Republican Party on the Committee On Science, Space and Technology. :rofl: enough said.

http://gop.science.house.gov/Members/Default.aspx




I've given up trying to argue Science with Republicans

Well that is a relief. Now stop trying to steal everyone else s' money to pay for your pet programs.

[Chris]

Let's get back on topic, please.

[Carygrant]

OK - lets go for broke.

Fuck you Chrust, you flaming retard!!!


One Moderator whose sense of humour has still to be seen . I am hoping the finding of Dark Matter will help change matter(s) .

[Chris]

Second warning to get back on topic, please.

[Cigar]

You meen Al Gore will become even more insignificant than he already is ??

When did Al Gore become the topic of this Thread?

Anyway, I disagree with the findings of the article based on my 50 year study.

My Winters in Illinois are shorter than 30 years ago.

My Summers in Illinois are longer than 30 years ago.

In my personal, expert, opinion.

[Peter1469]

That thought that you gave up on science?

[Cigar]

That thought that you gave up on science?



No ... I gave up on trying to talk to Republicans about Science.

[hanger4]

When did Al Gore become the topic of this Thread?

You expect me to think you're that stupid ??

Al Gore is cashing in on the Worlds Going to End Cause of Global Warming Craze.

[Chris]

Thread closed, infractions will be issued later.

[Chris]

The moderators have decided to reopen the thread without infractions being issued at this time, however subsequent off-topic comments will result in thread ban or infraction. Consideration with be taken of the poster's history of prior similar warnings and infractions.