Daily Mail UK Still Denying Climate Change

[NotNow]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29I3MupVz

Saturday, Nov 24 2012 6AM  5°C 9AM 7°C 5-Day Forecast Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it


The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 16:42 EST, 13 October 2012 | UPDATED: 08:59 EST, 16 October 2012
Comments (958) Share
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.

global temperature changes

Research: The new figures mean that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 â€" a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.


More...Wettest start to autumn for 12 years as South West continues to be battered by torrential rain

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ â€" factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.
  Disagreement: Professor Phil Jones, left, from the University of East Anglia, dismissed the significance of the plateau. Professor Judith Curry, right, from Georgia Tech university in America, disagreed, saying the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’

Warmer: Since 1880 the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. This image shows floating icebergs in Greenland
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.
Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.

Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees  Celsius by the end of the century.
The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own  carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.
At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport â€" energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ â€" a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.
Flawed science costs us dearly

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and  b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Surprising: News that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years will come as something of a shock. This picture shows drifting ice in Canada
Not that there has been any  coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release â€" unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.
The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher â€" yet it  is being imposed for only one  reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century â€" when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.
Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.
It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.
This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as  those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert. ‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability  [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event â€" the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather â€" ‘it could go on for a while’.
Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’
Headache: The evidence is beginning to suggest that global warming may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed - a conclusion with enormous policy implications for politicians at Westminster, pictured
Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom  line: the “no upward trend” has to  continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the  models’ gloomy predictions:  ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’
Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to  wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.
Meanwhile, his Met Office  colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘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.’
He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 â€" that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record â€" he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.
Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and  models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.

Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.
Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century â€" and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.
The most depressing feature  of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.
So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed â€" a conclusion with enormous policy implications.



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#ixzz2D7HP3VbI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[NotNow]

Setting aside your usual need to attack the messenger, I simply posted an opposing argument.  One which quotes the "reliable collected data" rise in world temperature since 1880 as 0.75 degrees Celsius.  This is information from the Hadley Unit which provides the UN with their information.  This seems to directly contradict the table cited by Lunican.  The same studies state that the world "Hadcrut 4" temp has remained flat for fifteen years. 

I am not interested in trading insults with you.  I read the article you posted and others and I am concerned.  I also read articles such as what I quoted and I am concerned that the system is being manipulated.  I don't see how anyone can read both articles and not be concerned by the completely different messages being propagated. 

Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia is a huge proponent of the "global warming theory".  But if this is true:
"Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom  line: the “no upward trend” has to  continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the  models’ gloomy predictions:  ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’,

then your article which claims that we are in danger of two to four degrees Celsius of global warning worldwide by 2020 places the UN "experts" as wildly wrong.

What is the truth of the matter?  I don't claim to be an expert, but the statements coming out of the scientific community certainly don't seem to agree. 

I am open to further factual information.

[ChriswUfGator]

The statements out of 99% of the scientific community agree, the article you quote is just the 1% lunatic fringe. It all depends on how you view the data, if you have one cold year due to whatever, factoring it into a period as short as 16 years (when you're dealing with averages), it can wipe out a slow but steady year-to-year gain. I'd postulate that's exactly what happened. I bet there is a reason they're hanging their hat on 16 years if you got into the data. Seems like an odd number to pick randomly.

About the .75 celsius temp rise, I believe that's correlated to historical averages, not an actual year-over-year figure. So if the temp rises 5 degrees in the last 5 years, but you're comparing it over a 50-year period, you see where I'm going with that. You're also dealing with the daily mail here, by the way, it's a conservative tabloid, getting to be what most people in the US wouldn't consider an actual news source. Everybody from the US to Sweden to anyone else who measures this stuff says the globe is warming, generally in direct proportion to atmospheric co2 levels. When you're dealing with 100 or 200-year averages, any number at all really is significant because it shows a trend.

[ChriswUfGator]

This is directly from NOAA;

[NotNow]

For those that want to see StephenDare!'s original posted article where UN officials claim that global temperatures will rise 2 - 4 degrees Centigrade by 2020 it can be found here:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,16729.0.html

I understand the data.  The newest information seems to indicate that the global warming models may be wrong.  This is according to the "home of global warming" University of East Anglia.  I didn't see anyone in the Daily Mail piece refuting the global warming theory.  The point of the piece was that the Hadcrut4 temperatures were not rising according to the models for a statisticaly significant period of time. 

I am concerned about the effects of industrialization on the planet and the methods for ensuring that those effects are minimized.  That does not mean that I will close my eyes to facts or demonize those that publish them.  I am interested in the truth, not the political spin.  When one side of a debate calls the other "crazy", "lunatic", or "criminal" and fails to justify such language it weakens their argument in my mind.

On the other hand, thanks for posting the NOAA tables.  Is there a version with more recent data than 2006?  Do you (StephenDare! or ChriswUfGator) agree that world temperatures will rise 2 - 4 degrees Centigrade by 2020?  I understand if your answer is "I don't know", since I certainly don't. 

[Adam W]

All of this seems out of context since StephenDare! decided to remove the conversation from the original thread and his original posting.  His decision to title this thread in such a way just reinterates the mindset.  For those that want to see StephenDare!'s original posted article where UN officials claim that global temperatures will rise 2 - 4 degrees Centigrade by 2012 it can be found here:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,16729.0.html

I understand the data.  The newest information seems to indicate that the global warming models may be wrong.  This is according to the "home of global warming" University of East Anglia.  I didn't see anyone in the Daily Mail piece refuting the global warming theory.  The point of the piece was that the Hadcrut4 temperatures were not rising according to the models for a statisticaly significant period of time. 

I am concerned about the effects of industrialization on the planet and the methods for ensuring that those effects are minimized.  That does not mean that I will close my eyes to facts or demonize those that publish them.  I am interested in the truth, not the political spin.  When one side of a debate calls the other "crazy", "lunatic", or "criminal" and fails to justify such language it weakens their argument in my mind.

On the other hand, thanks for posting the NOAA tables.  Is there a version with more recent data than 2006?  Do you (StephenDare! or ChriswUfGator) agree that world temperatures will rise 2 - 4 degrees Centigrade by 2012?  I understand if your answer is "I don't know", since I certainly don't.

If you're interested, here's what the Met Office had to say about the article:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

I agree about the misleading title of this thread, though I generally don't trust anything the Daily Mail prints. The Met points out, for example, how the author of the article tries to spin the idea that there was a study published quietly that no one bothered to report... until now. Apparently that's not really true at all.

[NotNow]

Thanks Adam, I appreciate the Met's answers to the article.  I hope we all continue to follow this subject, as well as the political solutions that are proposed.

It seems to me that almost all media is suspect anymore.  But in reality, it probably always has been that way.

[Adam W]

The Daily Mail is a right wing conservative rag, actually.  And the thread title is not misleading at all.

The article is a stand alone subject that deserved its one thread (as evidenced by the comments here) and it was given its own thread.  Notnow is the original poster of this thread and can change it at any time he likes----thats what the modify button is for.

Stephen, considering this is the final paragraph of the article, I think it's fair to say the title of the thread is at least inaccurate if not not incorrect:

"So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed â€" a conclusion with enormous policy implications."

As far as the political leanings of the Daily Mail, although they are a conservative (in the UK sense of the word) newspaper, they generally seem to take a more populist stance - they never miss an opportunity to whip up a good bit of moral panic.

[NotNow]

Just two quick things, as I tire of the nitpicking.  StephenDare!, who named this thread? I posted the article in a different thread.  You made this thread and you titled it.   As for the science, it appears that you are wedded to a conclusion, regardless of the most recent data.  Is that science?  Or politics?  Once again, the point of the article is not to debunk the global warming theory, but to point out a possible flaw in current modeling.  The statements of the scientists involved generally follow what they should, that the subject will continue to be watched and studied.  The two leading scientists named in the article have made differing conclusions based on the same data, so there does seem to be a difference of opinion among at least these two experts.  At least they are not calling each other names.

I understand that you believe the article is "slanted".  I am afraid that much of the information on this subject is "slanted" one way or the other, while the scientific questions still remain.  I take it that you believe that the UN report is correct and that global temps will rise at least two degrees centigrade by 2020? 

To argue the political agenda here is a useless exercise, as our individual politics differ so widely.  But don't you wish that JEA would offer incentives for commercial and residential solar systems? As well as buy back of generated electricity?   Don't we own this utility?  I think that all of us could at least agree on this one local issue.

[NotNow]

StephenDare!, you created this new thread, you named it, you change it. 

You are missing the entire point.  Has the global temperature risen as the "consensus" has predicted since the introduction of the theory itself?  I'll say it again, no one is stating that "global warming" doesn't exist. The question is..."Do the existing global warming models accurately predict the phenomena?"   I don't have the personal stake in the subject that you seem to have.  I don't claim to be an expert in the subject.  There is certainly no denying the facts.  Your view of them is clearly stated.  Thanks for your input.

[NotNow]

Ha! I am sure that you do like the title.

I didn't see your last post until I had posted.  Good information, thank you.  My "political" alarms went up at the last paragraph of this "scientific" article though:

"Carbon pricing will result in a net benefit the economy as compared to doing nothing and trying to adapt to the consequences."

I will continue to monitor the subject, thanks again for your information.