What, say it ain’t so Joe …

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

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.

It appears that we are witnessing nature regressing to an unknown mean – and that the natural variability of global climate supersedes anything man-made. And if man is affecting the global climate, it is unmeasurable against the noise of climate’s natural variability.

The “big lie” …

While the graph looks dramatic at the scale shown, we need to remember that the total range of the graph is one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) and due to station locations, urban heat effects and other anomalies – the measurements are well within the margin of nature’s own variability. The truth is that we do not know the Earth’s mean temperature, the periodicity or amplitude of cyclical temperature changes. 

global temperature changes

It’s best not to advertise the scientific truth because it impairs funding and the creation of agenda-driven public policy …

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 – 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.

Some scientists who have been known to engage in dubious – and possibly criminal behavior – dismiss the findings …

One of the scientists at the heart of the Climategate email scandal showing gross manipulation of the raw data and cherry-picking date ranges to produce specific results is complaining that the short reporting period does not allow scientists to draw valid conclusions. And he is technically right. But timeframes are a two-edged sword because they also illustrate the fact that if man’s puny efforts were to influence global climate, it would be several hundred years before we might see measurable results – or the results could still be lost among the noise of the natural variability of nature.

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.

The models have always been flawed …

Essentially, the models are trying to approximate the historical temperature measurement results even though the data contains significant errors and has been statistically manipulated in ways that introduces further errors. The models are not complete as they do not correctly account for the greatest of the greenhouse gasses – water vapor – which has a self-regulating and overriding effect on the global weather. Nor do these models explain the severe weather impacts of ENSO (El Nino and La Nina) and similar weather phenomena in the scheme of things. Basing public policy on flawed models with pre-ordained results is bad public policy and bad science.

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’ – 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.

A scientist’s personal convictions should play no part in science. But it does give rise to a suggestion that some activists were intentionally biasing their results to fit their pre-ordained conclusions. In one case adding real temperature data to proxy temperature data to make the results fit the pre-ordained conclusion. Others caught up in climategate spoke of manipulating numbers, timeframes or omitting data which did not promote their cause.

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.

Unfortunately, very few people talk about the benefits of a warmer world and higher carbon dioxide concentrations, always pointing out the negative effects. There have always been deserts, flood plains, famines and other such natural disasters. We cannot control weather, but we can help alleviate its effects on our population. How many people told you that the great damage caused by severe weather effects was caused by man. Increasing building density and population in areas known to be affected by severe weather events? How many people told you it was gross stupidity to rebuild a portion of New Orleans below sea level. If they wanted a deep sea port, let them keep the port, but move the population centers inland to higher, safer ground.

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.

Without credible proof, governments have pumped billions into nonsensical projects that did not improve our quality of life – but did make certain people billionaires. No wonder the special interests have formed a loose confederacy with the corrupt politicians to keep the money flowing.

Three questions they don’t want you to ask …

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.

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 – 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 – 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 – 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.

What, the corrupt politicians and activist scientists have lied to you?

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.

‘Taint us lyin’ to you McGee, it was those damn weather models …

‘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 – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘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.’

The scientists do not understand the science of global climate change, but assured the world they not only understood it – but the science was settled. Settled enough to allow corrupt politicians to make self-serving public policy to enrich themselves and their special interest benefactors. THE BIG LIE THAT ALLOWED THE BIG HOAX TO PLUNDER YOUR TAX MONEY.

Bottom line …

• Let us remember that global warming is not even a theory, it is a hypothesis that has yet to be proven by experiment and those experiments replicated and re-proven by independent researchers.
• Let us remember that science is not performed by consensus and groupthink.
• Let us remember that global climate science is inherently biased towards the conclusions of the patrons funding the research. That is, projects which seem to confirm the hypothesis are more likely to receive funding than those that do not suggest positive results. Therefore, researchers slant their research towards funding sources and institutions choose researchers and projects to keep the funding flowing into their coffers. All-in-all, those that talk about the funding from big oil-big coal, neglect to mention that their funding is less than 1% of the total funds spent by governments, institutions and foundations.
• As for carbon dioxide – a necessary component of life – the world has been hotter, colder, with more atmospheric carbon dioxide and less atmospheric carbon dioxide prior to the industrial age. And it can all be explained rather easily. One, because the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the rise in mean temperature, it cannot be causal. Two, the phenomenon is easily explained by Henry’s Law – as temperatures rise, the oceans outgas (emit) dissolved carbon dioxide into the atmosphere similar to opening a cold beer on a warm day. Three, carbon dioxide retards the heat being released into space, but does not add heat to the system. This heat delay phenomenon can be seen in the tropics were nights remain warm and moist. Four, the reason carbon dioxide was chosen to regulate, is because it is at the heart of our energy production and thus allows for political control over our energy-dependent economy. Five, there is no rational reason to allow gross polluters to keep polluting by buying government-sanctioned indulgences from Wall Street Wizards who trade them for a profit.

We have been scammed and several people, Al Gore among them, should be going to jail for fraud and a crime against humanity.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online