Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 110

Thread: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes Rose

  1. #1
    Advisor livefree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    09-22-13 @ 11:43 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    313

    Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes Rose

    Wacky articles filled with misinformation, lies and propaganda, written by ignorant retards and published in disreputable newspapers, seem to be like crack cocaine for the denier cultists. How many threads have they started on here now about the totally bogus article by David Rose, published in the Daily Mail, that claimed that the Met Office data showed that here has been no warming in the last 16 years. LOL. Rose has been busted for his lies many times in the past and he currently has no credibility whatsoever. Beyond that though is the plain and inescapable fact that the Met Office itself refuted Rose's lies about what their data actually says.

    Here is the official Met Office press release - which, BTW, is a government press release, is not copyrighted, and is free to reproduce in full.

    Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012

    Met Office News Blog - the official blog of the Met Office news team
    10/14/2012

    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.

    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.

    Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.
    "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." -John Stuart Mill

  2. #2
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

    This is a phenomenon I've seen repeated countless times over the last 5-10 years: a new paper or data series or adjustment is published and the denier community immediately jumps on it, misinterpretting what it means and assigning it far more significance than it actually has in the big scheme of things. The blogosphere wildly overreacts to the initial overreaction, convincing itself that that this whole AGW hoax has FINALLY been dealt a death blow. And then, after some weeks or months, the scientific community finds time to calmly explain that no, that's not what it means, and don't get excited -- it doesn't really detract from AGW theory at all.

    Rinse and repeat.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    UK, Cymru mostly.
    Last Seen
    02-13-18 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,618

    Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    This is a phenomenon I've seen repeated countless times over the last 5-10 years: a new paper or data series or adjustment is published and the denier community immediately jumps on it, misinterpretting what it means and assigning it far more significance than it actually has in the big scheme of things. The blogosphere wildly overreacts to the initial overreaction, convincing itself that that this whole AGW hoax has FINALLY been dealt a death blow. And then, after some weeks or months, the scientific community finds time to calmly explain that no, that's not what it means, and don't get excited -- it doesn't really detract from AGW theory at all.

    Rinse and repeat.
    The other problems are that so many people think scientific conclusions are just opinions, like something someone thought up in a bar, rather than theories constantly subject to testing and peer review. The second big problem is that anyone loosely describable as a 'scientist' is held to be capable of commenting knowledgeably on any scientific subject whatever. If they would grasp that questions of climate are best referred to climatologists it would prevent a great deal of hot air, at least, from increasing the temperature.

  4. #4
    Sage
    flogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Wokingham, England
    Last Seen
    04-21-19 @ 08:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,927

    Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

    [QUOTE=Penderyn;1061172387]
    The other problems are that so many people think scientific conclusions are just opinions, like something someone thought up in a bar, rather than theories constantly subject to testing and peer review.
    Until actual empirical evidence is ever produced of human culpability for current warming then it really is just a theory, and its one increasingly at odds with both current observation and the history of very recent paleoclimatic natural precedents.

    The second big problem is that anyone loosely describable as a 'scientist' is held to be capable of commenting knowledgeably on any scientific subject whatever.
    And some think even flute players are qualified to do so as long as they say what they want to hear.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    UK, Cymru mostly.
    Last Seen
    02-13-18 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,618

    Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

    [QUOTE=flogger;1061172515]
    Quote Originally Posted by Penderyn View Post

    Until actual empirical evidence is ever produced of human culpability for current warming then it really is just a theory, and its one increasingly at odds with both current observation and the history of very recent paleoclimatic natural precedents.



    And some think even flute players are qualified to do so as long as they say what they want to hear.
    Which people who know anything about the matter agree with your first statement?

  6. #6
    Sage
    flogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Wokingham, England
    Last Seen
    04-21-19 @ 08:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,927

    Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

    [QUOTE=Penderyn;1061172536]
    Quote Originally Posted by flogger View Post

    Which people who know anything about the matter agree with your first statement?
    Well there isnt a single climate scientist on Earth has ever produced such evidence and it has been the holy grail of climate science to find it. Dont take my word for it go look for yourself and you'll quickly find it doesnt exist . This whole hypothesis rests on worthless predictive computer modelling not empirical data and it always has done.

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    22,939

    Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    This is a phenomenon I've seen repeated countless times over the last 5-10 years: a new paper or data series or adjustment is published and the denier community immediately jumps on it, misinterpretting what it means and assigning it far more significance than it actually has in the big scheme of things. The blogosphere wildly overreacts to the initial overreaction, convincing itself that that this whole AGW hoax has FINALLY been dealt a death blow. And then, after some weeks or months, the scientific community finds time to calmly explain that no, that's not what it means, and don't get excited -- it doesn't really detract from AGW theory at all.

    Rinse and repeat.


    Regardless of what anybody says, the actual data seems to indicate that the warming or cooling over the last ten years is hard to define.


    http://images.debatepolitics.com/att...attach/jpg.gif

  8. #8
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    22,939

    Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

    Quote Originally Posted by Penderyn View Post
    The other problems are that so many people think scientific conclusions are just opinions, like something someone thought up in a bar, rather than theories constantly subject to testing and peer review. The second big problem is that anyone loosely describable as a 'scientist' is held to be capable of commenting knowledgeably on any scientific subject whatever. If they would grasp that questions of climate are best referred to climatologists it would prevent a great deal of hot air, at least, from increasing the temperature.

    And if the temperature in fact is not increasing, what then? If the temperature started to increase in 1600 and the CO2 did not start to increase until 150 years later, what then? If we have been warmer than today numerous times with no Anthropogenic forcings at all, what then?

  9. #9
    Advisor livefree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Seen
    09-22-13 @ 11:43 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    313

    Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

    Quote Originally Posted by flogger View Post
    Until actual empirical evidence is ever produced of human culpability for current warming then it really is just a theory, and its one increasingly at odds with both current observation and the history of very recent paleoclimatic natural precedents.
    Nonsense. There's an enormous amount of "actual empirical evidence of human culpability for current warming" but you're too brainwashed to see it. Your overall lack of understanding of science is shown clearly by the way you use the word 'theory'. Both "current observation" and "recent paleoclimatic natural precedents" support the conclusions of the world scientific community and virtually all of the world's climate scientists regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. You've been filled with worthless propaganda and misinformation by those with a financial stake in selling fossil fuels and you obviously have no frumping idea what you're talking about.



    Quote Originally Posted by flogger View Post
    Well there isnt a single climate scientist on Earth has ever produced such evidence and it has been the holy grail of climate science to find it. Dont take my word for it go look for yourself and you'll quickly find it doesnt exist . This whole hypothesis rests on worthless predictive computer modelling not empirical data and it always has done.
    More clueless rubish. Nothing you say is true.

    Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
    Last edited by livefree; 11-21-12 at 09:36 PM.
    "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." -John Stuart Mill

  10. #10
    Sage
    flogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Wokingham, England
    Last Seen
    04-21-19 @ 08:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,927

    Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

    Quote Originally Posted by livefree View Post
    Nonsense. There's an enormous amount of "actual empirical evidence of human culpability for current warming" but you're too brainwashed to see it.
    Great ! At last somebody has found the holy grail . Lets see it in published literature then ?

    Your overall lack of understanding of science is shown clearly by the way you use the word 'theory'. Both "current observation" and "recent paleoclimatic natural precedents" support the conclusions of the world scientific community and virtually all of the world's climate scientists regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate changes.
    I'm not interested in appeals to authority just on what can and cannot be proven,

    You've been filled with worthless propaganda and misinformation by those with a financial stake in selling fossil fuels and you obviously have no frumping idea what you're talking about
    For example ...... ?

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •