Wait a minute....Golbal warming has ended. At least for the past 15 years.

[Hambone]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html

But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.

Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.

This isn't meant to be happening. Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and make no mistake, with the rapid industrialisation of China and India, CO2 levels have kept on going up.

According to the IPCC and its computer models, without enormous emission cuts the world is set to get between two and six degrees warmer during the 21st Century, with catastrophic consequences.

Last week at Cancun, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give £20billion immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100, leading to rocketing food prices and a decline in production.

Grip of winter: A woman and girl sit under a tree on a bench in South Weald Park, Brentwood, Essex, this week

The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.

Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.

They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.

When the Met Office issued its December 2009 prediction, it was clearly expecting an even bigger El Nino spike than happened in 1998 - one so big that it would have dragged up the decade's average.

But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.

That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat.

Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.

The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.

There is no dispute that the world got a little warmer over some of the 20th Century. (Between 1940 and the early Seventies, temperatures actually fell.)

But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus' that the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue to disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is starting to fray.

Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.

Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapor - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz17QRqcINI

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz17QR8m7Sc

[iceicebyebye]

"The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't."

not exactly....even with what is considered the worst case scenario, the mean A1F1 slope is rather modest for the first few decades of century 21....acceleration begins around 2030 and continues through end of century.

love the "winter's grip" photos in the article....always good to visually portray a snapshot of current local weather conditions in a global climate change news story...

[tacoman25]

love the "winter's grip" photos in the article....always good to visually portray a snapshot of current local weather conditions in a global climate change news story...

Kinda reminds one of snapshots of polar bears floating on ice, doesn't it?

[Ed Lizard]

53ºF in Cancun this morning. Probably a coincidence.

[aslkahuna]

Here we go again. Seems like we go through this routine annually. Bottom line is that Climate Change does NOT rule natural variability that may lead to periods of either actual cooling or a cessation ro reduction in the rate of warming. Fifteen years is not significant when you are talking about long term effects. Finally, weather and climate are two different things. Climate is what you expect to happen over a period of time based upon trends while weather is what you get on a day to day basis. While one may determine the trends in the other and vice versa, you can not use short period weather trends to characterize a long term climate trend.

Steve

[iceicebyebye]

Kinda reminds one of snapshots of polar bears floating on ice, doesn't it?

Fair observation to the extent that media tends to insert current weather observations into climate focused materials, for either global warming or contrarian focused topics.

But mostly that suggests a false equivalence....what's going on in the Artic is more relevant from a global climate change perspective than the weather on any given day in a few areas of the UK.

[BethesdaWX]

Here we go again. Seems like we go through this routine annually. Bottom line is that Climate Change does NOT rule natural variability that may lead to periods of either actual cooling or a cessation ro reduction in the rate of warming. Fifteen years is not significant when you are talking about long term effects. Finally, weather and climate are two different things. Climate is what you expect to happen over a period of time based upon trends while weather is what you get on a day to day basis. While one may determine the trends in the other and vice versa, you can not use short period weather trends to characterize a long term climate trend.

Steve

Do you realize how STUPID our alarmism is? This "warm period" is dwarfed by many opthers, Including the RWP, & the MWP... in BOTH rate of upward slope & Temperature/Sea Ice. When will someone realize that CO2 is not the driver of global temps.

WV = 95% of GHG effect

CO2 emmisions, compared to all the gases in the atmosphere, is 0.28% WP.

Heck, without the adjustements, our current warm temps match those from the 1940's, only we have urbanization & more CO2.

[BethesdaWX]

Fair observation to the extent that media tends to insert current weather observations into climate focused materials, for either global warming or contrarian focused topics.

But mostly that suggests a false equivalence....what's going on in the Artic is more relevant from a global climate change perspective than the weather on any given day in a few areas of the UK.

NH ice Shrinking until 2007......SH ice Increasing until 2007......PDO switch in 2007.....

There were times in the arctic almost as bad as what we have now....1940's, late 1800's

[Alpha5]

Here we go again. Seems like we go through this routine annually. Bottom line is that Climate Change does NOT rule natural variability that may lead to periods of either actual cooling or a cessation ro reduction in the rate of warming. Fifteen years is not significant when you are talking about long term effects.

Steve

Reliable satellite data barely goes back 30 years...how can we make assumptions off of that?

[Hambone]

not exactly....even with what is considered the worst case scenario, the mean A1F1 slope is rather modest for the first few decades of century 21....acceleration begins around 2030 and continues through end of century.

love the "winter's grip" photos in the article....always good to visually portray a snapshot of current local weather conditions in a global climate change news story...

What that "chart" shows me is that the pro AGW brigade realized that their earlier forecasts were wrong and that warming had ended. In order to jump start the movement they simply built in a lull, then started the warming again out in the future.

This new AGW forecast is no more reliable than the failed one it replaced.

The future of the AGW movement is the only non variable, totally predictable parameter involved here. They will continue to blame man for climate change regardless of data to the contrary. They will continue to trumpet solar, wind and tidal alternatives, regardless of economic viabilty. They will continue to resist nuclear, because it is corporate and does not fit their global aesthete and they will continue to work towards a redistribution of wealth, power and the destruction of the US economy.

[aslkahuna]

Reliable satellite data barely goes back 30 years...how can we make assumptions off of that?

Having been a Forecaster and having studied Climo in school well before we even had unreliable satellite data let alone reliable, I approach this from a different viewpoint. Another point, yes Water Vapor is the most common GHG in the atmosphere, it is also highly variable and recycles quickly. True, CO₂ makes up a very small percentage of the atmospheric composition, but do you all realize that a. without that small amount (or more correctly only about 1/3 of it) that the Earth's average mean temperature would be closer to 0°C than the current 15°C? and b. that it takes only a comparatively small increase (though large pecentage of CO₂) to make a significant difference in the retention of IR energy. Global Warming IS happening for a variety of causes including anthropogenic, and while His Holiness Albert I goes overboard as do others, there will be effects in the long term.

Steve

[iceicebyebye]

What that "chart" shows me is that the pro AGW brigade realized that their earlier forecasts were wrong and that warming had ended. In order to jump start the movement they simply built in a lull, then started the warming again out in the future.

This new AGW forecast is no more reliable than the failed one it replaced.

The future of the AGW movement is the only non variable, totally predictable parameter involved here. They will continue to blame man for climate change regardless of data to the contrary. They will continue to trumpet solar, wind and tidal alternatives, regardless of economic viabilty. They will continue to resist nuclear, because it is corporate and does not fit their global aesthete and they will continue to work towards a redistribution of wealth, power and the destruction of the US economy.

what a fantastic display of ignorance and hysterics in one post.

the "chart" is the ensemble output for A1F1 from the Met Office's HadCM3, first used in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001). And the model simulation spans from 1989 through 2100. this is considered the worst case scenario, and your suggestion of "building in a lull to jump start the movement" by the "AGW brigade" is laughable. perhaps you should focus a bit on understanding data and model simulations.

and there is no consolidated and lockstep "they" in the "AGW movement". opinions regarding the merits of alternative energy sources vary amongst your "AGW brigade" much like in regards to any major societal/political issue.

and your closing phrase is, well, hysterical and fear mongering.

[Kevin Druff]

they will continue to work towards a redistribution of wealth, power and the destruction of the US economy.

The raging capitalists in the banking industry, assisted by the deregulating, government-so-small-it-can-only-fit-in-the-bedroom, all-taxes-are-evil, Republican governing coalition of the last 30 years have already accomplished this.

[tacoman25]

Fair observation to the extent that media tends to insert current weather observations into climate focused materials, for either global warming or contrarian focused topics.

But mostly that suggests a false equivalence....what's going on in the Artic is more relevant from a global climate change perspective than the weather on any given day in a few areas of the UK.

Except that a single photo of a polar bear on an ice floe doesn't prove a thing about what's going on in the Arctic. If anything, it's misleading, because it gives gullible people the impression that the polar bears are drowning and in SERIOUS trouble, when in fact polar bear populations are the healthiest they have been in decades.

[backdoorfront]

What should the temperature be? What is the optimal temperature? Optimal for whom?

I seem to remember the MWP coinciding with the flowering of civilization.

[wxmeddler]

Well, were talking about Golbal warming here, it says so in the title of the thread. So Global warming still is happening.

Wait a minute....Golbal warming has ended. At least for the past 15 years

[skierinvermont]

What should the temperature be? What is the optimal temperature? Optimal for whom?

I seem to remember the MWP coinciding with the flowering of civilization.

great point. you are smart

this proves nothing.

[skierinvermont]

The raging capitalists in the banking industry, assisted by the deregulating, government-so-small-it-can-only-fit-in-the-bedroom, all-taxes-are-evil, Republican governing coalition of the last 30 years have already accomplished this.

Yep.. the wealthiest 1% now control ~40% of the wealth in America, and the top 5% control 65%. The rest of us are just peons at this point completely irrelevant. Redistribution and destruction accomplished. And this has been demonstrated yet again in the GOP blocking of tax increases for millionaires despite the lowest tax rates in a century and a dangerous deficit.

[nzucker]

great point. you are smart

this proves nothing.

I think his point is a good one. The rise in global temperatures has generally been beneficial to humanity, starting with the dawn of civilization after the Wisconsin Ice Age and Younger Dryas, and probably more recently with the high agricultural yields. That doesn't mean future global warming can't hurt us, but those trying to declare that 1850 was the optimal climactic balance are neglecting the dynamic aspects inherent in climate.

[skierinvermont]

I think his point is a good one. The rise in global temperatures has generally been beneficial to humanity, starting with the dawn of civilization after the Wisconsin Ice Age and Younger Dryas, and probably more recently with the high agricultural yields. That doesn't mean future global warming can't hurt us, but those trying to declare that 1850 was the optimal climactic balance are neglecting the dynamic aspects inherent in climate.

Just because humans flourished when it was warm in 1100 doesn't mean humans will flourish if the earth warms 3C by 2100. It's a stupid point and you are smart enough to know that.

If you want to pretend that's not exactly what he was implying and that he had some complex sophisticated argument go ahead.. knock yourself out.

[mempho]

The raging capitalists in the banking industry, assisted by the deregulating, government-so-small-it-can-only-fit-in-the-bedroom, all-taxes-are-evil, Republican governing coalition of the last 30 years have already accomplished this.

You do realize that the banking industry is the government no matter which party is in control? It's a pretty easy thing to check. You see, banks are deregulated but they are to be given power over carbon exchanges in order to "save the planet."

Everything you see is about the consolidation of power into a single nexus and that nexus is a marriage between big government and big business. Things fall into place after you understand that point.

[iceicebyebye]

Except that a single photo of a polar bear on an ice floe doesn't prove a thing about what's going on in the Arctic. If anything, it's misleading, because it gives gullible people the impression that the polar bears are drowning and in SERIOUS trouble, when in fact polar bear populations are the healthiest they have been in decades.

Valid to the point previously covered that media is bit lax with imagery in regards to climate coverage. Polar bears are an iconic figure that average joe and/or coke drinker can connect with. plus kids like the warm and fuzziness, even though they would rip you to shreds if you got too close (assuming they didn't run away first, which would be their natural reaction).

So anyway, no defense being offered here for polar bear utilization in stories/ads, but the more salient point is the relative importance of the Arctic region within the global climate evolution, vs any one UK city on a given day.

[Kevin Druff]

You do realize that the banking industry is the government no matter which party is in control?

Oh, believe me, I know more than most. Dodd-Frank? A joke in terms of re-regulating banks to do what they're supposed to: taking deposits and making loans.

This is taking the thread a little off topic here, but, eh... The crux of the problem in the United States, to my eyes, is that, for the most part, we don't make anything anymore. For the past 20 years the US banking sector has created a system in which the creation of money is an end in-and-of itself. One bank made money by packaging loans up, the next bank made money by packaging packages of loans, the next bank made money by insuring the loans, the next bank made money by insuring the packages of packages of loans, and then AIG came along to package, sale, and insure the insurance on the packages of the packages.

Sure, we have companies that invent things, but then the manufacturing jobs are sent to the Far East or south of the border. To bring this back on topic:

This system is built upon a bed of cheap oil. Whether you believe in AGW or not is irrelevant to the true end game here: peak oil. So long as it's cheaper to ship millions of articles of clothing from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam than manufacture them here, so long as it's cheaper to fly an apple from New Zealand than farm it here, so long as it's cheaper to send iron ore from Minnesota to China to be made into steel which is imported back to the United States, the jobs lost over the last 4 decades are not coming back.

As long as we continue to operate as if there are NO negative externalities to the extraction, distillation, and burning of fossil fuels, our jobs will continue to be shipped overseas and our military will be sent around the world on foolish errands in an attempt to assuage our addiction here at home.

Those who do not buy into AGW claim there is insufficient evidence to risk the harm that proposed changes could cause to the economy. I ask you if that harm is greater than a barrel of oil costing $150. $200? $300?

Bethesda claims the risks to the economy of action to force a move away from fossil fuels is greater than the risks of AGW. If we don't begin to force a transition away from fossil fuels NOW, I propose that the effects of peak oil is far greater than even AGW. A world of peak oil, with no move away, is one of ever-increasing dependence on military might, ever increasing cost of energy, war, famine, and a general return to a Hobbesian state.

[easternsnowman]

What that "chart" shows me is that the pro AGW brigade realized that their earlier forecasts were wrong and that warming had ended. In order to jump start the movement they simply built in a lull, then started the warming again out in the future.

This new AGW forecast is no more reliable than the failed one it replaced.

The future of the AGW movement is the only non variable, totally predictable parameter involved here. They will continue to blame man for climate change regardless of data to the contrary. They will continue to trumpet solar, wind and tidal alternatives, regardless of economic viabilty. They will continue to resist nuclear, because it is corporate and does not fit their global aesthete and they will continue to work towards a redistribution of wealth, power and the destruction of the US economy.

This gets to the real point that GW crowd wants worldwide socialism! I hope the new congress eliminates funding for them.

[backdoorfront]

Just because humans flourished when it was warm in 1100 doesn't mean humans will flourish if the earth warms 3C by 2100. It's a stupid point and you are smart enough to know that.

If you want to pretend that's not exactly what he was implying and that he had some complex sophisticated argument go ahead.. knock yourself out.

What should the temperature be? What is the optimal temperature? Optimal for whom?

Yet no one ever answers the questions. I'm not sure why.

[tacoman25]

Valid to the point previously covered that media is bit lax with imagery in regards to climate coverage. Polar bears are an iconic figure that average joe and/or coke drinker can connect with. plus kids like the warm and fuzziness, even though they would rip you to shreds if you got too close (assuming they didn't run away first, which would be their natural reaction).

So anyway, no defense being offered here for polar bear utilization in stories/ads, but the more salient point is the relative importance of the Arctic region within the global climate evolution, vs any one UK city on a given day.

Fair enough. Though as you are probably aware, the cold spell that has hit the UK has affected far more than one city on a given day...it has been one of the greatest early season cold waves on record, and it is looking like this December could be the coldest in a long time. Not that any of this refutes climate change...but it certainly flies in the face of those who were saying the mild period from 1997-2007 was due to global warming and Britain would rarely see snow in the future.

This lesson can in turn be applied to the hype over the Arctic...as it becomes more clear that natural processes play a huge role in climate cycles for given regions, perhaps one should consider this when looking at climate changes in the Arctic.

[skierinvermont]

What should the temperature be? What is the optimal temperature? Optimal for whom?

Yet no one ever answers the questions. I'm not sure why.

This should answer your question.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

[BethesdaWX]

great point. you are smart

this proves nothing.

Your reply is even smarter

Global warming would be a big help to everyone. Even if the botched scare stories come to commence, Humans adapt, we have more room for food/crops, we have more room in the NH & SH in the N & S poles to settle and Expand our population, and avoid urbanization......New shipping routes Open up enhancing trade.......

I'd be Much more "Terrified" ( lol) if we were cooling.

[skierinvermont]

Your reply is even smarter

Global warming would be a big help to everyone. Even if the botched scare stories come to commence, Humans adapt, we have more room for food/crops, we have more room in the NH & SH in the N & S poles to settle and Expand our population, and avoid urbanization......New shipping routes Open up enhancing trade.......

I'd be Much more "Terrified" ( lol) if we were cooling.

good argument

very sophisticated

who needs scientific and economic studies?

[BethesdaWX]

good argument

very sophisticated

who needs scientific and economic studies?

Fantastic response :clap: :clap: