Posted on 10/14/2012 9:40:45 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
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.
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 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’–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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Darn, now I will have to think of some other way to destroy the planet.
I never met a meteorologist yet who believed in man-made global warming, much less any other kind.
Real meteorologists know better.
Using the temperature observations from non-representative surfacestations located within the planetary boundary layer as a proxy for the heat content of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere does not make much sense from the scientific point of view, especially when the claim for accuracy is in fractions of a degree that is far less than the accuracies of the temperature measuring instruments.
The long-term records of the vintners are helpful to a limited extent with some local and regional climate trends related to agriculture, but they cannot provide definitive information about the rest of the planetary environment.
NOAA and UEA-CRU are not so great at recordkeeping. I’ve tried numerous times over the years to obtain copies of one or more of a Federal log with the weather records I authored. These efforts have been uniformly denied or made too burdensome to be feasible. When closely questoned, a few NOAA workers acknowledged unspecified stacks of the paper records are being lost forever before they can be microfilmed or digitally scanned. The reecords became wet in a basment, and the aperworms or insect larvae have been eating them. What is left was due to be discarded in the garbage.
As the Climategate e-mail has disclosed along with other sources, the temperature records have been adjusted and re-adjusted until CRU and NOAA can nolonger report what the original values were before all of the adjusting began. Without many of the original paper records, it may become impossible to discover what the original temperature was when it was first recorded.
In the absence of the original observational values, the experiment cannot be replicated by independent investigators. Without the possibility of replication of the experiment, the experiment cannot qualify as science. If the experiment does not qualify as science, why hasn’t someone been investigated for misreprenting the use of taxpaer funding?
"Damage: Global warming has been caused in part by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station"
The problem with that - the 'smoke' is not smoke at all, it is harmless steam.
Even in an article completely debunking 'global warming' some idiot had to try to continue the scare tactics as best they could.
W[eather] I[n] N[ame] [O]nly.
The last paragraph in the article:
"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 – a conclusion with enormous policy implications."
Warming real? Only .75 degrees warming since 1997?
We all know it's a crock, but the warmists keep on telling us it's a catastrophe in the making. BS!!
Warming real? Only .75 degrees warming since 1880?
A fraction of one degree in 132 years???
These warmists need to get a grip on reality and quit being scaremongers.
Below is line of IDL source code from the leaked CRU codebase:
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
The comment after the semicolon (’fudge factor’) is in the original source code. Notice how the later time periods are adjusted upward. If you input random noise into this code you would get a hockey-stick graph.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447
Now, there could be a benign reason for the ‘fudge factor’. Maybe there is an a known error in the source data? Maybe CRU needed to correct some other systematic bias? Who knows? But unless the reason is clearly documented, explained, and justified in the published research, it’s going to look damn suspicious.
Back in late 1980s when I was a CS undergrad at UMN and later a CS grad student at UIUC, I worked quite bit with researchers to fix up their Fortran simulations, doing code optimization for models run on Cray supercomputers and TMC Connection Machines at the MN Supercomputer Center and NCSA at UIUC.
In those days all the big federal granting agencies (National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, etc) required that any computer source code created or funded using federal research money must be made available to any US citizen on request. I spent plenty of time at the copy machine killing trees and spinning tapes for these requests.
Some time after I left (not sure when) the federal research agencies quietly changed the rules. The requirement for public disclosure was dropped. Today AGW the reseachers like Michael Mann at Penn State are generally not releasing their source code or raw data.
Some AGW skeptics are trying to use FOI to get at the code and data, however Michael Mann and the other AGW proponents are fightning it tooth and nail in the federal court system.
As a Fortran programmer I know a million ways to fudge datasets in ways that would be absolutely undetectable without the source code (which I never did BTW).
We need to go back to the old rules from the 1980s: if you get federal money to publish your research, then the raw data and source code must be made public under an Open Source license.
If not, why not? What have the AGW researchers to hide if they are as above-board as they claim to be?
Maybe we should’ve increased the size of that hole in the ozone layer in order to vent all the heat from globull warming.
Can you translate that into the cost of Cheap Cal-Red wines next year? We had a failure of our sweet corn this year due to the cooler temps here in Benderville this summer...
My pleasure... ‘-)
I just noticed this on Drudge and I’m bookmarking it here for later read.
IMO the last paragraph of the article is a copout to the rest of the article.I caught that too. It's the author "reaching across the aisle" at the end of his piece.“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 – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.”
Just like McCain, he's either too chicken or too mentally feeble to stick to his own argument.
Prison time and restitution for damages are warranted.Sounds like John should sign up in FR.- John Hendricks , Montevideo, 15/10/2012 13:27
I’ve never found anybody willing to argue with me that we are closer to the next ice age than we are to the last one. The geologic record is just too plain. If anything we’ve had a slightly longer than typical mild stretch. Relax and enjoy it while it lasts.And I've never read any of these lying "scientists" making the claim that AGW will prevent the next ice age. So we never even get to ask them, if so, is that a bad thing?
“Can you translate that into the cost of Cheap Cal-Red wines next year? We had a failure of our sweet corn this year due to the cooler temps here in Benderville this summer...”
Fortunately for those who prefer Cheap Cal-Red wines, most of those grapes are grown from Lodi/Stockon and south.
Gorebull cooling hasn’t impacted those areas yet, and the harvests have been basically normal.
The only problem is Sutter has such a high demand for its sweet white wine, a lot of vineyards of low cost reds are being converted to the sweet white grapes.
That will cut into the supply of low priced Cal Red grapes.
Well said.
Sounds like he’s eight years away from retirement.
“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 – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ “
That guy ought to be Knighted or something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.