Better bundle up:
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997…
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
So far there is no sign of any of this happening.
Why does the stupid earth hate science sooooooooo much?
It would help if the Daily Mail and the Daily Caller would just read the actual news release entitled Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming. In it, they will find things like:
1) Solar activitity will reduce temperature by 0.08 °C, while AGW will increase temperature by about 2.5 °C over the same period.
2) Even if we return to Maunder Minimum levels of solar activity, the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.
2.5C minus .13C = 2.37 C net increase.
If we returned to Maunder Minimum levels of solar activity, wouldn’t it make sense to assume that, aside from any influence of CO2, the temperatures would take on the same values they had during the Maunder Minimum?
Even though we had about a 1C drop during the Maunder Minimum, repeating it now would only cause a 0.13C drop? Is that science or magic?
The press release is full of other holes, such as their assumption that the main solar link to climate is in the visible spectrum (a drop in brightness). More up-to-date research indicates that the much larger change in UV output might have a very significant impact on temperatures, and solar physicists are also debating whether we have grossly underestimated even the visible brightness change inherent in a Maunder type event. link. And of course, there’s also an accumulating body of experimental evidence that the solar wind (which varies greatly during these events) changes cosmic ray counts and thus cloud formation, altering the Earth’s albedo and causing major climate shifts.
Thankfully we have the UK Met office to just punch in a fudge factor into a computer program and tell us “the truth” without the need for all that sciency stuff like research and observation.
You uncritically accept that 2.5° increase? Says a lot about you. I bet you agree with the people who say insolation has less effect on the global temperature than the trace of CO2 in the air.
George and Rick – I merely point out that the linked article badly misquoted what the Met actually said.
Your faith in frauds and flawed models is amusing, rather than touching. Particularly given that the earth refuses to conform to their predictions.
Your faith in people who can’t even correctly read a damn press release is equally amusing.
Your faith in people who can’t even correctly read a damn press release is equally amusing.< ?em>
My views do not require faith in such people.
And yet if you look at the blog of that well known alarmist Roy Spencer, you’ll find a graph of satellite global temperature measurement showing a rise in temperatures since 1997.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
His graph shows 1997 ending at +0.3C, and the graph’s latest temperature is +0.13C. That’s a decline of 0.17C since 1997.
Don’t stop there George, one of the early months in 1983 also appears to be warmer than December 2011, clearly that proves theres been no warming in 28 years! (to idiots at least).
So if a decline in temperatures from 1997 to the present indicates a warming from 1997 to the present, what would an increase in temperatures be called? If “warming” means either an increase or decrease in temperatures, then warming theory can’t be refuted, and thus it isn’t remotely connected to science.
Phil Plait takes a look at the Daily Mail article here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/30/while-temperatures-rise-denialists-reach-lower/#more-43791
So if a decline in temperatures from 1997 to the present
1998 was a very warm year, but 2010 was arguably hotter. And the question isn’t when the hottest year was, but what the multi-year trend looks like. In NASA’s dataset, the last 10 years include 9 of the hottest ever (1998 being the other). That’s just the sort of gradual warming trend that the climate models would predict.
Andrew, your links says the sun has no influence on climate. I knew the ice ages were a myth! I knew it! Along with the holocene grand maximum, the Roman warm period, the medieval warm period, etc.
Real scientists would use this new solar minimum as an opportunity to actually take measurements and adjust theories. The UK Met office, not so much. It’s more important to keep the funding rolling in by sharply denouncing anyone who disputes their religious prophecies.
I knew the ice ages were a myth!
George, perhaps you should look up “Milankovitch cycles”.
Oh, the Milankovitch cycles that cause the atmosphere’s CO2 to vary, or the Milankovitch cycles that cause tiny differences in the incoming solar radiation? Since the UK Met office clearly established that solar radiation can’t have any appreciable effect on climate, it must be the way CO2 varies with orbital eccentricity.
Interesting chart showing the deviation from the average temperature. Without getting into the quality of the data or the method for determining the average, the chart shows a +.13 degree difference in 2011.
It would take more information on the methodology to convince me that such a small change has any statistical significance.
I’m no scientist, climate or otherwise, but what good are climatological models if they have no predictive power and aren’t otherwise falsifiable?
It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997
No, the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s.
You said “No” and then argued “Yes.” Sloping up till 1997, then going flat, means that the period after 1997 (the 2000’s) would be higher than pre-1997 (the 1990’s). Some climatologists describe 1997 as a step-change, with the 1980-1997 period hovering around one average, then a shift in ocean patterns after the ’97 El-Nino, and 1997 to the present hovering around a different average.
The “warming ended in 1998” talking point is based on the fact that 1998 was the warmest year yet in the UK dataset (the NASA dataset has 2010 as the warmest year). That’s because 1998 was an outlier (thanks in part to El Nino), much warmer than the years immediately before or after it. It isn’t that temperatures sloped up until 1998 and then leveled off; they bounce around a lot from year to year. Which is why it makes more sense to look at longer term averages, which show a steady warming trend: the 80s warmer than the 70s, the 90s warmer than the 80s, and the 00s warmer than the 90s.
One of these years, call it 201X, the UK dataset will break the 1998 record. Then warming deniers will start saying that warming stopped in 201X….
And all temperatures started in the 1970’s, which is conveniently the last big dip in the graph. Going back past that is forbidden, because it leads to higher and higher temperatures, culminating around 1940 which would’ve been hotter than 1998 if that era hadn’t suffered significant cooling (about a half degree) during the 2000’s.
One of the more interesting and unexpected discoveries of climatology has been the way the past cools down, even though such behavior is in accordance with the accepted laws of thermodynamics, which says any object like the 1940’s must radiate heat to the outside environment.
culminating around 1940 which would’ve been hotter than 1998 if that era hadn’t suffered significant cooling (about a half degree) during the 2000′s.
Show me something supporting your claim that global temperatures in the 1940’s were as warm as today.
Because if 1940 were colder, they wouldn’t have to keep adjusting it down. Just this month, 1940 in Reykjavik Iceland dropped by 1.8C in the GISS database. They’d already down a smack down on 1930’s temperatures, trying to get 1934 colder than 1998, and it’s ironic that the founder of the UK CRU was the man who determined that the Medieval Warm Period was 1 to 2C hotter than today, and hotter by 4C close to the acrtic. That got erased, too, when the first IPCC report failed to alarm everybody and they needed to go for the hockey stick.
“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell, 1984
“In the Soviet Union, the future is known with certainty. It’s the past that keeps changing.”
Your claim is that CRU and GISS and NOAA are fraudulently changing past temperature records? Why didn’t the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study pick that up? Are they in on the conspiracy as well?
Irregardless if one buys into the warming does spending 200 billion dollars a year to ameliorate a 1.8-2.5c rise in global temperatures over the next 100 years actually make any sense whatsoever? Particularly that most of that money would be used to pointlessly try and curb CO2 production? As I stated in a previous thread 200 billion is the cost of the Apollo program over it’s entire lifetime. That’s one Moon program being funded per year for 100 years to try and prevent a 1 1/2 foot rise in ocean levels. Nevermind that the ocean levels have already risen a foot or so within fairly recent human history and yet we haven’t witnessed islands tipping into the sea and little girls clinging to the last branch of a dead tree to escape the global warming tsunami that’ll surely awash the Earth. And people say building Moon bases is crazy talk and economically unfeasible? A fraction of that money could be spent to deal with Malaria outbreaks and save far more lives than would be affected by the effects of Global Warming. But yea, just keep listening to your Goracle who predicted that the ice caps would be melted by now. Or Chu’s prognostications that the Sierra Nevada’s are to be starved of snowfall by now and dry as a desert with people in California dying of thirst from lack of essential snow melt. “NO NO my line chart is better than your line chart!”, friggin’ grow up!
In my part of Pennsylvania, this has been “the year without a winter”. I’ve had exactly one measurable snowfall of 2″, and it was gone within 48 hours. Last week the temperature got up to 60º, and it may do the same this week.
Nonetheless, I’ve thought that AGW was a total crock from Day 1, and this hasn’t changed my mind any. Last year we had several significant snowstorms. Newsflash: Weather is changeable.
A reading list for the alarmists, lolz for everyone else.