back to article Global warming still stalled since 1998, WMO Doha figures show

Figures released by the UN's World Meteorological Organisation indicate that 2012 is set to be perhaps the ninth hottest globally since records began - but that planetary warming, which effectively stalled around 1998, has yet to resume at the levels seen in the 1980s and early 1990s. The WMO figures are produced by averaging …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    That's because it is called "climate change" not global warming. Some areas warm, some don't.Look at our crazy floods in the UK can you really say that "all is well".

    1. AceRimmer
      Stop

      You mean the crazy practice of building on flood plains and failing to manage the inevitable consequences

      1. Code Monkey

        Also paving front/back gardens. Britain's not as absorbent as it once was.

      2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
        Facepalm

        I think that maybe what the OP was referring to, if somewhat opaquely, is that the severity and frequency of 'extreme' weather events, such as the flooding in the UK (which is more severe in many places than previously recorded at any time), is increasing. This is one of the consequences of 'climate change'. Others include changes to stratospheric wind patterns, which cause 'blocking', leading to unusual weather patterns such as the unprecedented droughts, heatwaves, and flooding that have occurred in recent years, and also changes to ocean circulation patterns, which alter salinity and temperature gradients, as well as increases in oceanic CO2 concentration, which affects organisms which build their shells out of carbonate minerals such as aragonite.

        Y'know, things like that, rather than just the idiocy of building on flood plains. It's probably also worth noting that much of the flooding currently subsiding in the country is in places NOT built on flood plains

        1. Charles Manning

          Perhaps there's just more reporting

          With the media increasingly out to create hype, perhaps there's just more reporting?

        2. David Leigh 1

          'the severity and frequency of 'extreme' weather events......... is increasing.'

          And your proof of this statement is?

          Hmm thought so; there is none, because it just isn't true. Before you make sweeping claims, at least check the facts or you end up looking like just another ill-informed climate alarmist bigot - which I'm sure you're not.

    2. lasrian

      Take the floods of 1953 where 307 people died and 24000 homes were damaged or destroyed.

      http://thamesweb.com/1953-floods.html

      There are always floods. If you factor in the massive paving over of gardens then the flooding situation is probably no worse than it has ever been.

      1. RICHTO
        Mushroom

        It is worse because the average temperature is higher than in 1953 due to global warming, so the atmosphere holds more water....meaning storms are likely to dump more rain on us...

        nb - global warming hasnt ceased at all since 1998. Where did he get that crap from? See http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/i8_GlobalTemp.PNG

        1. Goat Jam
          Thumb Up

          Cool, now that I know RICHTO is a climate catastrophe peddler I *know* I'm on the right side of the argument.

        2. Karl H
          Mushroom

          and Chicken Licken is running to see the king

          to tell him that the Sky is falling in.

          We're all DOOMED, we're alll GOING TO DIE ! You name it Anthropogenic Global Warming , Mayan calendar 21 Dec 2012 , 2038 bug , impending meteorite , Yellow stone park and other super volcanos going pop, Global Nuclear War ...... etc ......

          How can I sleep at night ?

          Easy , and that is to realise that a lot of what is dressed up as science is in fact educated guess work, and generally the "guess" bit of it is much larger than the usually well meaning scientist(s) either knowing or unknowingly admits to . I suppose they need to ensure their funding stream and have to be certain about some things to convince others to carry on funding them. I can understand that, and I also understand that there is a large range of "guess" in their analysis of chaotic systems.

          and yes , we are all going to die sometime, although hopefully not all at the sametime :-D .

          ( In fact Global Nuclear War is probably the only one humankind is in any real control of )

    3. James 47

      A few thousands years ago I heard some dude had to build a friggin' ark!

    4. haloburn

      Weather is Weather, my understanding is that the Jetsream is South of where it normally sits - nothing to do with climate change. At the start of the year we were told we were in for record droughts due to man made climate change what happened? Record flooding due to (you guessed it) man made climate change!

      You climatephiles really get your rocks off blaming any fart or whisper on catastrophic man made climate change.

      1. Mad Mike

        Is it really getting worse

        I'm not really sure these weather 'disasters' are actually getting any worse in frequency. There were certainly a lot of incidents in the past, some massively worse than now. In the past, flood plains regularly flooded, often every year. I suspect the difference is we perceive them to be worse now as we've decided to build on the flood plains!! Effectively, the problem hasn't got worse (flood plain still floods), but we've made the impact worse by putting houses etc. there. Therefore, we perceive the impact as worse.

        Let's not forget the frozen Thames. Let's not forget that it's only relatively recently that the Thames was restricted to its current size by the building of embankments. Previously, it was much, much wider. Previously it regularly flooded onto its flood plain, often every year. It's just that now, we've constrained it to such an extent it floods a lot less, but with much greater impact when it does.

        So, I suspect the weather and it's 'disasters' haven't really changed in severity or regularity. I suspect we've simply made the same problem worse by poor planning and thought processes.

        1. Zaphod.Beeblebrox
          Thumb Up

          Re: Is it really getting worse

          That, and much better monitoring and reporting than ever before.

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Meh

        "Weather is Weather, my understanding is that the Jetsream is South of where it normally sits - nothing to do with climate change. "

        How about if stays South of where it's normally at?

        Or it moves South of where it's normally at every year from now on?

        Any one year it's weather.

        Every year (or every year at the same time)

        What's that?

    5. DrXym Silver badge

      You can't blame a single event on climate change. But you can track extreme weather events over time and measure the frequency that they occur. If that frequency is increasing then it reasonable to conclude that a contributory factor is likely to be climate change.

      1. Pl0ns1971

        Really ?

        Track extreme weather events ? so easy just by looking over your window ? or You mean by storm chasers :) with fancy cars ?

        As far we know first satelite realised was Russian "Sputnik" - but it could only beep ;) and it was cold war anyway ;) So you are right - more people or meerkats looking there is more storms or predators detected ;)

        and hotter is gets ;) But how cold it was when no one has been looking ;)

    6. NomNomNom

      I bet the jet stream getting stuck all the time has something to do with the rapid warming that has happened in the arctic in recent years

    7. Tyrion
      FAIL

      -- That's because it is called "climate change" not global warming. Some areas warm, some don't.Look at our crazy floods in the UK can you really say that "all is well". --

      You speak as if there had never been floods or droughts in the history of the Earth. Entire civilisations have been wiped out by them in the past. Some experts say a drought brought about the end of the Egyptian Pharaohs/empire. And flooding is an annual occurrence on the Nile.

      In the UK though, we simply don't invest in the infrastructure to cope with adverse conditions. Hell, a few leaves on a railway track can cause widespread disruption here. If we'd invest in better drainage and flood prevention, there'd be no problem. But once again, government is penny pinching on essentials, then once the damage is done, it decides to act. Which is inevitably more expensive (subsidising the insurance industry).

  2. Himalayaman
    Holmes

    Just planet Earth trying to compensate. It won't be able to do that forever.

    1. Omgwtfbbqtime
      Holmes

      Forever is a long time

      I agree - eventually the sun will blow up/go out and planet Earth won't be able to compensate for that.

      However I do think that planet Earth will be just fine for the next couple of million years regardless of what we do. Life will adapt.

      We consider dinosaurs to have been the losers in evolution - they only lasted 2 million years or so - we havent been around for a million yet so we might be jumping the gun a little there.

      1. David Dawson

        Re: Forever is a long time

        Ooh, I know this one!

        "If man survives for as long as the least successful of the dinosaurs—those creatures whom we often deride as nature's failures—then we may be certain of this: for all but a vanishingly brief instant near the dawn of history, the word 'ship' will mean— 'spaceship.'" - Clarkey.

        And the dinosauruseruses were around for 160+ million years or so, versus a few hundred thousand for us.

        But they are all dead now, like we all will be soon.

        1. stim

          Re: Forever is a long time

          Dino's haven't all died out, they have just got fewer (crocs) and evolved to the skies (birds)...

        2. JeffyPooh
          Pint

          Re: Forever is a long time

          "...the dinosauruseruses ...are all dead now."

          Nope, not "all" of them.

          Some of their descendents are outside right now, perched on telephone wires and pooping on your car.

          1. P. Lee Silver badge
            Joke

            Re: Forever is a long time

            All the fun ones are gone.

        3. P. Lee Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: Forever is a long time

          Yep. In less than 100 years, we'll all be gone.

        4. poeg

          Re: Forever is a long time

          Lead on MacDuff.

      2. ed2020

        @Omgwtfbbqtime

        I agree that, in all likelihood, life will adapt, but that doesn't necessarily mean the human race will be able to adapt. This isn't, in my opinion, about saving the planet but more about saving ourselves.

      3. tapanit
        Headmaster

        Re: Forever is a long time

        Actually dinosaurs lasted over 160 million years and dominated the Earth for some 135 million.

        Anyway, yes, Earth will survive any climate change until Sun gobbles it up, but whether the human species will is another matter.

      4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Boffin

        Re: Forever is a long time

        "We consider dinosaurs to have been the losers in evolution - they only lasted 2 million years or so "

        I think you'll find that was 70 million.

        But they died out 65 million years ago.

    2. Dr Stephen Jones

      "Mother Earth is Angry and Punishing Wicked Mankind"

      "Just planet Earth trying to compensate. It won't be able to do that forever."

      A large number of superstitious assumptions in those 14 words.

      The more superstitious people are, the more they claim "science" supports their superstitions.

      1. Himalayaman
        Holmes

        Re: "Mother Earth is Angry and Punishing Wicked Mankind"

        It is called an eco-system.It has build in systems to compensate... just not for very long if things get bad. Melting polar ice for example has been able to keep global warming in check for now.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Err... No.

      I assume you're talking about Gaia theory, basically the planet is a series of massive feedback systems. That's correct, but there is no effort or no healing. It's a feedback system there is just as little effort as there is in a thermostat switching on or off you heating. It's also not healing, it's returning to or otherwise achieving a steady state.

      1. P. Lee Silver badge

        >it's returning to or otherwise achieving a steady state.

        entropy?

  3. slith
    Thumb Down

    Stalled? I don't think so!

    Stalled? I don't think so!

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    1. haloburn

      Re: Stalled? I don't think so!

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha, honestly Skeptical Science, oh my sides, lol.

      Folks you better read it before SS go and change the article to read something else and edit the comments to make it look like they that's what they were saying all along. You might get confused though by what appear to be suddenly out of context critical comments.

      Thanks for the chortle. You were kidding right?

  4. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Wrong.

      Global temperature is at a standstill and has been for 15 years.

      You're the one being dishonest.

      So it isn't getting warmer, but the weather must be getting more crazy and extreme, right?

      Actually:

      A new paper published in the European Physical Journal finds that there has been no increase in extreme weather in central Europe over the past 250 years. Furthermore, the paper finds that extreme weather decreased in the Greater Alpine Region of Europe over the past 30 years in comparison to the preceding 30 year period. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that global warming does not increase extreme weather as claimed by climate alarmists.

      The study’s main result – in the concluding words of the Austrian researcher at the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna – is “the clear evidence that climate variability did rather decrease than increase over the more than two centuries of the instrumental period in the Greater Alpine Region [GAR], and that the recent 30 years of more or less pure greenhouse-gas-forced anthropogenic climate were rather less than more variable than the series of the preceding 30-year normal period.” Put another way, greenhouse-gas-induced warming has not led to more frequent and/or greater extremes of either precipitation or temperature in the GAR, in clear refutation of the climate-alarmist claim as to what, in their view of the subject, should have been occurring.

      Changes of regional climate variability in central Europe during the past 250 years - Böhm, R.

      The European Physical Journal Plus, Volume 127, article id. #54

      So no Warming, and no Weirding.

      Now go and have a good cry.

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: Wrong.

        Mmm, freshly picked cherries. Yummy!

        I guess we'll all be fine, since everyone on the entire planet lives in the Greater Alpine Region then?

        What's that as a percentage of the Earth's populated surface?

      2. Ted Treen
        Big Brother

        Re: Wrong. @AC 12:41

        All overlooking the obvious:- Warble gloaming has been hammered ad infinutum ad nauseam by our wonderful, altruistic, deeply caring ruling élite, so they have oodles of our money (which we earned) so they can save us from our own follies as they, naturally know best.

        OR

        They're a bunch of self-seeking shysters, gleefully jumping on any excuse to misappropriate more of our hard-earned to their own pockets and/or for their own benefit, and the day when I accept that Balls, Harman, Cameron OR Cleggover know better than I about anything, is the day when my brain will have ceased to be.

        1. Androgynous Crackwhore
          Thumb Up

          @ Wrong. @AC 12:41 (Ted Treen)

          There's also the:

          It's not your fucked up, self interested, totally corrupt planners/politicians, grabbing backhanders from every dredging, fracking, construction conglomerate they can find, who are turning your country into an uninhabitable wasteland devoid of even the most resilient wildlife and from which your house is liable fall/be swept/explode at any moment. It's, er, all China's fault. Those commie bastards. Tell them to stop burning so much coal and it'll all go away. Honest. You can trust me, I'm a politician. This really is very serious. We all care about our country don't we. Look I'm doing everything I can... I'm jetting off to Doha to spend two weeks fornicating with prostitutes giving those evil commies a stern telling off. Don't forget to vote.

          ...angle to consider. I doubt the unimaginably sweet appeal of that has eluded our political lords and masters. And the poor fuckwitted masses seem unable get enough of it!

      3. NomNomNom

        Re: Wrong.

        "Global temperature is at a standstill and has been for 15 years."

        Even the graph linked in the article shows that to be false

      4. t.est

        Re: Wrong.

        Nope it's not, use your grey sells a bit, ant take a look at earth's poles. If you know enough physics you'll understand.

        Made a lengthy post here, try to read it and understand it, though my English isn't perfect.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Dishonest headline is dishonest

      If we cant measure global warming by the average global warming (wasnt there a graph about this?) then how is it done? By events easily explained but now given new meaning (see first post)?

      Or do we measure global warming on co2, which is a gas not a temperature? Therefore it would surely be called globalCO2(ing?)? But they called it global warming and claimed warming using the graphs and pretty pictures of the end due to warming. But you say looking at the actual global warming is overstating reality.

      Go on...

  5. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
    FAIL

    "no warming since 1998"?

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html

    1. Dr Stephen Jones

      Re: "no warming since 1998"?

      You've just posted a four year old article?

      Jeez, the Global Warming crackpots aren't even trying any more.

      1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

        Re: "no warming since 1998"?

        The fact that the article is 4 years old demonstrates eloquently that Lewis is simply rehashing a long-discredited view.

        1. Badvok
          Mushroom

          Re: "no warming since 1998"?

          Probably also worth noting that NewScientist is a self-declared major proponent of Anthropogenic Climate Change, hardly a wise choice if you want un-biased analysis.

          1. NomNomNom

            Re: "no warming since 1998"?

            oh so New Scientist is now part of the conspiracy?

            1. Badvok
              WTF?

              Re: "no warming since 1998"?

              What conspiracy?

              A few years back NewScientist openly announced that they thought the level of evidence was such that there was no further need for debate and that they would no longer be publishing any articles that attempt to refute Anthropogenic Climate Change (causing me to immediately cancel my subscription).

              No conspiracy, just a publication that has openly stated its bias, and as such is not a good source for un-biased analysis of any details relating to this matter.

              1. RICHTO
                Mushroom

                Re: "no warming since 1998"?

                That's not bias - the evidence for global warming is overwhelming and hasnt been in any doubt by climate scientists for at least a decade now. It's just like saying that they wont bother publishing articles that state that the world is flat, or that the moon is made of cheese.....

              2. Burb

                Re: "no warming since 1998"?

                Badvok: which credible scientists' work refuting Anthropogenic Climate Change should New Scientist have been publishing?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: "no warming since 1998"? @AC 21:44

                  There is almost none, because for the last decade or so the establishment would not fund any research that may have run counter to ACC.

                  No money, no research.

                  No research, no papers.

                  No papers, no reputation for the people holding a counter-ACC view.

                  No reputation, no credibility amongst the scientific community, so they are ignored.

                  No 'creditable' dissenters - Consensus!!

                  It's a positive feedback mechanism skewing the scientific establishment. This whitewash has been going on since the clique that has managed to hijack climate research got the ear of the politicians.

    2. David Pollard

      Re: "no warming since 1998"?

      Despite being all of four years old, the New Scientist article was rather good.

      It is noteworthy that some climate scientists then had suggested "changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [would] bring cooler sea surface temperatures."

      Also noteworthy is the conclusion that, "If these predictions are right ... you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped."

      Is seems to me they pretty much had the measure of it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "no warming since 1998"?

        @David Pollard: The christians say something similar dont they? Judgement day will come but while nothing changes people wont believe.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "no warming since 1998"?

          As truth ages, it becomes false, didncha know?

          We call it "progress" and its one of the central tenets of modern thought.

  6. Arachnoid
    Thumb Down

    Just over eager scientists trying to justify the billions wasted on global warming reduction efforts.I'm surprised they haven't tried printing the message in capitals yet .

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Statistical Fluke

    Thats been going on for 14 years..........................

    1. haloburn

      Re: Statistical Fluke

      It's just as likely the whole global warming, climate change or whatever they are calling it these days is based on a statistical fluke. Or possibly statistical malarky I mean have you looked at Dr Mann's hocky stick statistical processes?

    2. NomNomNom

      Re: Statistical Fluke

      If you deliberately start your 14 year period at the height of the biggest El Nino in 100 years - you all but guarantee you are going to get some kind of statistical fluke, because you've chosen a unique period.

      1. Chet Mannly

        Re: Statistical Fluke

        "If you deliberately start your 14 year period at the height of the biggest El Nino in 100 years - you all but guarantee you are going to get some kind of statistical fluke, because you've chosen a unique period."

        But its OK to base climate change on that exact same biggest el nino in 100 years?

        1. Goat Jam
          FAIL

          Re: Statistical Fluke

          Around 1998 is when climate alarmists were showing us horrifying graphs that showed runaway warming occuring over the previous 16 or so years. Now we have 16 years without warming they're all "oh 16 years isn't long enough and can be explained away as a statistical glitch".

          This of course contradicts what was said at the time by one of the high priests of the Church of Climate Change, Professor Phil Jones

          1. NomNomNom

            Re: Statistical Fluke

            "Now we have 16 years without warming"

            according to who? not the data. The data shows a warming trend over the last 16 years.

  8. fawlty
    Facepalm

    You can prove anything with statistics/graphs etc etc

    "ninth hottest globally since records began" - isn't this a bit like saying the cheerio that I ate just now at breakfast appears to be the 9th largest cheerio of all cheerios in my bowl that morning, therefore we may have observed a long term trend of cheerios getting larger?

    My wife had frosties by the way, WTF is that all about?

    1. Ted Treen
      Holmes

      Re: You can prove anything with statistics/graphs etc etc

      Could it be that your wife has better taste?

    2. David Pollard
      Joke

      Re: You can prove anything with statistics/graphs etc etc

      "My wife had frosties by the way, WTF is that all about?"

      Do you know a good lawyer?

  9. Lunatik
    Trollface

    Sigh...

    What are you commentards railing against what has been demonstrated to be over many years, El Reg's default world view?

    It's what we expect here...and want?

    Other sites are available, you know.

  10. daveje

    Can we get a 'oh no, not again' image?

    The usual Lewis cherry-picking has omitted Stott's quote: "the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record".

    And not one but two references to 1998, which is quite impressive in such a short piece.

    Here's a suggestion for a new Register catchphrase: "Statistics? We've heard of it."

    1. Chet Mannly

      "the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record"

      BUT its still cooler than 1998 - you are cherry picking, as the temperature is not increasing

  11. BillBall
    FAIL

    Stats 101

    Still picking out individual years and comparing them rather than looking at trends I see...standard stuff for the doubters

    Have an umbrella with your cherry.

    1. Jerome Fryer
      Thumb Up

      Re: Stats 101

      Total failure to grasp something is helped a lot if you have no idea what you are looking for.

      I have almost no understanding of cricket or baseball at all, so maybe I can get a gig on here pontificating on cricket and / or baseball in the same manner that Lewis gets to on climate change?

      (Before you complain about "Where's the IT angle?", I'm sure that cricket and baseball have statistics that can be put in a spreadsheet and randomly fiddled about with -- then I can fail to comprehend what that data really represents and provide ridiculous commentary.)

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We have x days to dave the earth...

    If we dont change our ways... nothing will happen.

    It kinda lacks the punch of the we're doomed camp. It is promising that they are looking into the things they dont know, such as the things which are changing the global temperatures rate of warming/cooling. However I thought that would have been a fundamental necessity to claim this climate change is not natural.

    When you dont know the variables it is more than difficult to attribute any weight to the possible causes. I hope soon we are given facts about what we do actually know instead of the cults of the pro/anti-MMCC propaganda.

    I can hope

    1. envmod

      Re: We have x days to dave the earth...

      please not Dave... I can't stand any more bloody Top Gear

  13. M7S

    Well if the "deniers" are wrong in thinking that things have been stable for a decade and a bit

    Then I'm really looking forward to the "warmists" blaming them for partly relying on figures from the UEA who I seem to recall are not universally regarded as the most impartial parcipants in the debate.

  14. Androgynous Crackwhore
    Mushroom

    Bad Lewis

    You're not still trying to use figures and science to debunk the climate apocalypse cult? Don't you know what science is? Give your figures and discourse a rest and turn on the BBC. Moron.

    Did I get that the right way 'round? (I'm new here)

  15. DrXym Silver badge

    Stop the cherry picking

    It's transparent and boring.

    1. Androgynous Crackwhore
      WTF?

      Re: Stop the cherry picking

      Quoting the latest NOA data is "cherry picking"? Do you apply this to all NOA data, or just the bits you dislike?

      ...and as NOA figures aren't good enough, what is the approved source for such data? The bottom of a large "crystal" bowl filled with whalesong?

      1. DrXym Silver badge

        Re: Stop the cherry picking

        Cherry picking is where someone only picks out facts they like from a large set of data and then puts their own spin on it to downplay the overall picture or trend.

        Mr Page does it every single time and this time is no different at all, choosing an arbitrary pair of dates to compare out of an entire range and ignoring a very clear trend upwards over a longer term. The original article cited is here:

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/global-temperatures-2012

        It has a nice big graph and the trend in that graph is obvious. Below the graph is a table broken down by year and dataset.

        Let's see if you can figure why 1998 was chosen to compare to 2012 instead of say 1995,1996,1997,1999,2000,2001,2002 etc. Answer - because a large spike in that one year could be used to downplay and pretend that the average temperature hadn't actually risen by around 0.2C in the intervening decade as the trend clearly shows it had.

        This is just a typical example of these stories on the Register - wilful misinterpretation of the evidence. Cherry picking. And you know it. It even had a light dusting of quote mining at the end using Peter Stott's words made in one context to validate a misrepresentation of the original article.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Re: Stop the cherry picking

          Here is the quote:

          Dr. Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said: "Although the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record, warming has not been as rapid since 2000 as over the longer period since the 1970s.

          "This variability in global temperatures is not unusual, with several periods lasting a decade or more with little or no warming since the instrumental record began. We are investigating why the temperature rise at the surface has slowed in recent years, including how ocean heat content changes and the effects of aerosols from atmospheric pollution may have influenced global climate."

          There does appear to be some emphasis indicating that a 10 year period of warming isn't that unusual, whilst accepting that there is still some warming going on. Unless I'm misreading it, he is saying that the rate of warming is decreasing and they are looking into why that might be - because it certainly isn't due to a reduced amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is it?

          1. poeg

            Re: Stop the cherry picking

            Our CO2 output has been linear genius. Try again... there's always blaming it on Xenu.

  16. Tom Paine

    Why do you keep lying, Lewis?

    Still with the anti-science denialist claptrap. I've had to stop reading El Reg to avoid it, it's so depressing and anger-inducing. (Just dipped back today to look for one particular story but now I can't be bothered.)

    1. Zaphod.Beeblebrox
      FAIL

      Re: Why do you keep lying, Lewis?

      What, exactly, did Lewis say that was a lie?

      I do find it interesting you "bothered" enough to comment...

      1. DrXym Silver badge

        Re: Why do you keep lying, Lewis?

        Lying by omission, or cherry picking. e.g. comparing an unusual spike in 1998 to current temperatures to pretend that the overall trend was not upwards. Which it is.

    2. Androgynous Crackwhore
      Mushroom

      Re: Why do you keep lying, Lewis?

      "I've had to stop reading El Reg to avoid it... blah... blah... blah... "

      So who's the liar? Hypocrite too.

  17. Fading
    Linux

    The warming has stopped....

    But the warm hasn't...... (gotta thank those oceans)

    On this though I am greatful as global cooling is something to be very afraid of.

    1. Douglas Lowe

      Re: The warming has stopped....

      It's good to avoid global cooling - and maybe our CO2 emissions have helped us do that - but let's try not to go too far the other way either ;-)

  18. HappyCoder
    Trollface

    Waste of Money

    The Billions of dollars they wasted on Global Warming research could of been better spent in the space Program. At least then when this planet does go to hell, we can just move to a new one.

  19. BigG
    Holmes

    No evidence of winter having arrived here

    Still warm indoors!

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's All A Conspiracy !

    Blame those new age Freemasons at Common Purpose

  21. G R Goslin

    I was rather amused by the 'spin' put on the statement

    We are investigating why the temperature rise at the surface has SLOWED in recent years, including how ocean heat content changes and the effects of aerosols from atmospheric pollution may have influenced global climate."

    When in fact, according to the figures, the warming has STOPPED. Even when admitting that they have a problem, they have to lie.

    1. NomNomNom

      "When in fact, according to the figures, the warming has STOPPED"

      The figures show a positive trend since 1998. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

      The trend since 1998 is 0.041C +- 0.143C/decade

      1. haloburn

        Oh come on. Skeptical Science. Just not a credible source on anything, they blew their credability when they started editing past comments and articles on the fly without telling anyone until they got found out.

        1. NomNomNom

          Such desperation to stay in denial

  22. TeeCee Gold badge
    Coat

    "...the levels seen in the 1980s and early 1990s."

    Ah! So the real underlying cause of Global Warming is shoulder pads and bouffant hair then?

    1. Rob

      Re: "...the levels seen in the 1980s and early 1990s."

      "...shoulder pads and bouffant hair..." now that's something to be alarmed about.

      If those come back into fashion then we really are fucked as a society.

    2. Tim99 Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: "...the levels seen in the 1980s and early 1990s."

      "Ah! So the real underlying cause of Global Warming is shoulder pads and bouffant hair then?"

      Yes, probably caused by the propellent from aerosol hairsprays...

  23. DRMMTMD

    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

    By David Rose

    PUBLISHED: 16:42 EST, 13 October 2012| UPDATED: 08:59 EST, 16 October 2012

    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.

    1. NomNomNom

      You are citing the Daily Mail?

    2. delboy711
      Unhappy

      David Rose is even worse than Lewis Page

      That article by David Rose is even worse than a typical Lewis Page article. Whereas Lewis Page takes a real piece of scientific research and then twists it to misrepresent what it says, David Rose invents his own research.

      After Rose published this piece the Met Office put out a press release completely refuting it.

      Before you believe anything Rose says you should watch this video by potholer 54

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1rCZz1ow

      potholer54 is a *proper* scientific journalist. Unlike Lewis Page he actually *reads* the scientific papers he is reporting on, and researches his stories. If you browse his YouTube page you will find pieces pulling apart some of Lewis Pages's stories too.

      1. Jerome Fryer
        Thumb Up

        Re: David Rose is even worse than Lewis Page

        I can only recall the the one video where potholer54 singled out Lewis for squashing, but he did note that Lewis is a serial offender at misrepresenting facts.

        WRT YouTube: potholer54 is a good resource for debunking denier nonsense, and greenman3610 also has a good channel where he presents the facts in a clear manner.

  24. Gaucho

    Here we go soon you will see the morons and industry paid propagandists come on and make their idiotic comments like:

    Weather changes and weather has changed in the past

    It is cosmic rays (for the tin foil hat crowd)

    The climatologists have forgotten the obvious reflective clouds

    The climatologist have forgotten the obvious solar cycles

    I heard from Rush Limbaugh FOX etc that this is a hoax

    It is a conspiracy by the US government and the worlds scientists

    It is a conspiracy by the worlds scientists to get rich

    Follow the money & Ignore the milti-trillion dollars oil/coal/gas industries

    Dems scientist thinks that they bees sooo smart but they don't get it

    Yet these guys cannot name one internationally or nationally recognized scientific organization that says global warming does not exist or that it is not caused by mankind. There are none because it has already been accepted as fact in the scientific community. You will not hear the idiots say that 98% of the climatologist say global warming is real. What they will quote is a obscure web sites that quotes other PhDs in everything from geology to statistics to proctology.

    1. haloburn

      If the straw man only had a brain lol

      1. haloburn

        Sing along

        I could wile away the hours

        Conferrin' in the comments

        Consultin' on the weather

        And my head I'd be scratchin'

        While my plots were busy hatchin'

        If I only had a brain

        I'd divert any riddle

        For any individ'le

        if they can't refrain

        lol we all need a good straw man argument to divert away from the conversation

    2. DrXym Silver badge

      Didn't you know? The scientific consensus that climate change is real and there is a strong anthropogenic contributory factor is just a conspiracy by a secret cabal of environmentalists and hippies!

      1. Jerome Fryer

        It's a diverse cabal of "scary people"

        ... and communists.

        ... and terrorists.

        ... and atheists.

        ... and people who read "The Guardian" (those few that aren't communists and / or terrorists and / or atheists, obviously).

        ... and any other "scary" people (are homosexuals still officially "scary"?)

  25. Chris007
    Happy

    "That said, there is now some admission even from the hardest climate hardliners that something may be going on which is not understood"

    chris see's the pitchfork brigade heading Lewis' way :)

  26. Armando 123

    All invective and commentardery aside ...

    ... isn't '98 the year that solar activiity peaked? IIRC, when the sunspot cycle went to the usual minimum after that, the spots didn't come back and warming stalled, maybe even reversed a little.

    This is actually pretty consistent with some historical data (see Maunder Minimum) and warming on other solar system bodies stopping and reversing at the same time. Maybe, just maybe, that big yellow ball in the sky has a bigger effect on our temperature changes than some models claim.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: All invective and commentardery aside ...

      "isn't '98 the year that solar activiity peaked?"

      no, 2002.

      "and warming on other solar system bodies stopping and reversing at the same time"

      no

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

      "Maybe, just maybe, that big yellow ball in the sky has a bigger effect on our temperature changes than some models claim."

      Maybe, but given solar activity has dropped since the 50s, probably not.

  27. t.est
    Stop

    Fools or what shall I say.

    Not understanding, what is there that they don't understand.

    If they ice's at the poles is melting, btw the best indicator for global warming we have, at the alarming speed they actually do, measured in volume. It will effect the temperatures everywhere. If the ice can't rebuild it self from year to year, it will have a cooling effect on the whole planet. Water is an excellent energy carrier.

    So a flat curve or even a curve that shows the earth is cooling. Doesn't tell us anything about if our planet is cooling down or warming up.

    But if the extremely cold areas can't stay cold, the earth is definitely warming up.

    Measuring this can't be done with photos of our poles, as they are 2 dimensional measurements. Just think about it if you put ice cream on the table, and can restrain from eating it, it will melt, and while doing so spread itself out, getting a larger area. And even cooling that area down that it reaches while melting.

    As all of you should know freezing water below zero so that it becomes ice, or melting ice above zero so it becomes water requires more energy than heating the water up from already liquid form, or freezing the ice even colder while it's as ice.

    This means that when the season pulsate between winter and summer. It's much harder to form back the ice that had melted in the summer period. And as already said water moves energy pretty well. That cold water that was melted has cooled down the planet elsewhere than on the pole. While the water that should freeze back to polar ice still is too hot to rebuild the lost ice from previous years.

    So yes, curves can show that our earth is cooler, but if our polar ice is still melting that is a failed measurement of our planets warming/cooling trend.

    As with everything else you need to calculate in Watts, not in Celsius.

  28. autodidaktos

    The aether

    This global warming thing is fascinating.Still it seems to me that societies are not motivated by the negative effects of hydrcarbon burning in our neigborhoods.We don`t care about our childrens development,why should we pretend to care about the distant future.

  29. Panicnow
    Pint

    Reality check

    Regardless of science, we all know the politicians are going to do f***-all anyway.

    So there are two rational behaviours.

    1) Prepare for the worse

    2) Party while you can!

    We burn everything we can get out of the ground and get it out of the ground as fast as we can. Absolutely no point in doing anything unilaterally, some-else will consume it.

  30. Herby

    What about Mars?

    Yes, us earthlings have monitored the "climate change" on Mars as well. Funny it seems that that planet is going through similar warming/cooling cycles like those we see here on this third planet from the sun. Of course, the change must be caused by the very probes we sent there, one being nuclear fueled and all, but that is a topic for future discussion.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: What about Mars?

      "Funny it seems that that planet is going through similar warming/cooling cycles like those we see here on this third planet from the sun."

      based on what evidence? Many climate skeptics refuse to even accept the extensive global temperature network we have on Earth. What temperature network exists on Mars?

      1. BillBall

        Re: What about Mars?

        The 'Mars is warming' claim is just another piece of diversionary rubbish, there is no evidence that is happening. We can't take temperature measurements, the whole myth is based on two photos that looked different.

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html

        cue cries of 'so we don't have evidence that it's NOT happening...'

  31. RICHTO
    Mushroom

    Im surprised that Lewis isnt hiding in a cave, waiting for the impact of planet Nibiru which is due next month....

  32. Shannon Jacobs
    Unhappy

    Got me to look--at the name of the author

    Ignored after that.

    The Reg is beginning to need a killfile for certain prominent posters.

  33. David Pollard

    Meanwhile the ice sheets continue to melt

    "The planet's two largest ice sheets have been losing ice faster during the past decade.... A new international study provides a firmer read on the state of continental ice sheets and how much they are contributing to sea-level rise."

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121129143312.htm

    1. David Pollard

      Re: Meanwhile the ice sheets continue to melt

      ... and there's more from the BBC

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20543483

  34. haloburn

    Maybe Climate Scientists should STFU and admit they know nothing and over stated it

    remember this classic from 2000:

    "However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

    "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said"

    It's snowing here this morning.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Maybe Climate Scientists should STFU and admit they know nothing and over stated it

      @haloburn: You just dont get it do you. Those statements were never made or were a minor oversight at the time because it is a solid, measurable statement and the climate refuses to bow down to the alarmist statements.

      Or that those statements are designed to scare people to action although those statements are an absolute lie which ruins the credibility of scientists, but climate science doesnt care about scientists reputations.

      But surely it is ok to lie, cheat, cherry pick and abuse the trust of the population in the name of the doomsday, MMCC, give me all your money, bow to the new religion. Isnt it?

      (I am looking to pro cult nutters to tell me which of the above it is btw)

      I am also entertained reading the comments of the cult followers who keep posting links to skepticalscience.com to prove their point. Even after comments pointed out the unreliability of that source because they rewrite comments and articles after publishing them.

      I also laughed at the comments claiming lewis is cherry picking when it is pretty much accepted that the pro cults more than massaged and cherry picked their data. As well as refusing to publish data because it would allow their 'consensus' to be challenged.

      How could anyone know the truth of what is going on when the truth is drowned out by so much bull?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Maybe Climate Scientists should STFU and admit they know nothing and over stated it

        I see down votes but no answers. Oddly enough this seems to follow the cult of the MMCC publishing rules. Down vote what they dont like but dont have a reason why. Guess its another case of the fact not following the desired model but dunno why. However you will surely cling on to your pre made conclusions just as bad as any anti-climate change cultist.

        What gets my back up is how asking for legitimate discussion isnt shouted down by the anti-CC cult, but the pro-MMCC cult will instantly assume that its made by a denier. I guess there is no middle ground otherwise known as scientific process.

        1. haloburn

          Re: Maybe Climate Scientists should STFU and admit they know nothing and over stated it

          You’re probably not going to get the MMCC crowd to debate on it at all, best you will get is links to sceptical science or real climate or worse guardian articles that somehow prove their point nuff said.

          It particularly galls me that for the whole MMCC theory to hold water they have not convincingly explained how CO2 accounting for a little over 3.6% of the greenhouse effect is driven catastrophically by the 0.117% CO2 that is the man made element, the other 3.5% comes from natural sources.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Maybe Climate Scientists should STFU and admit they know nothing and over stated it

            OK how about starting with getting the right interpretation of your own figure...go read the geocraft article again genius, 0.117% is the man-made contribution to the total greenhouse effect, not CO2 concentrations, and when it says the total greenhouse effect, it means the TOTAL, the full greenhouse effect that stops the dark side of our planet dropping to -250C every night, not the additional greenhouse effect that has caused the 1C rise since pre-industrial times.

            So now we know you have your own figures wrong...

            Go get a correct figure in the correct context. Then we'll have a debate.

            1. haloburn

              Re: Maybe Climate Scientists should STFU and admit they know nothing and over stated it

              I didn't say CO2 concentrations I said greenhouse effect

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Maybe Climate Scientists should STFU and admit they know nothing and over stated it

                "0.117% CO2"...seems pretty clear to me.

                Doesn't alter the fact that it refers to the total greenhouse effect that keeps our planet's temperature above -250C when the sun is down, and is a classic skeptic tactic, AGW is about the additional effect of man-made CO2.

                Ever hear about the phrase "the straw that broke the camels back"? its not about the about what proportion of the total weight that the last straw represents (miniscule), it's about how much it is over the maximum the system you are applying it to can cope with.

          2. NomNomNom

            Re: Maybe Climate Scientists should STFU and admit they know nothing and over stated it

            "You’re probably not going to get the MMCC crowd to debate on it at all"

            Well I've challenged a number of your comments but you just slink off every time and ignore them. Lets try it again, although I don't expect you will even respond.

            "It particularly galls me that for the whole MMCC theory to hold water they have not convincingly explained how CO2 accounting for a little over 3.6% of the greenhouse effect is driven catastrophically by the 0.117% CO2 that is the man made element, the other 3.5% comes from natural sources."

            What are these figures based on? They are wrong. CO2 is responsible for about 20% of the greenhouse effect (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/). Human activity is responsible for about 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere today: CO2 increased from about 300ppm to 390ppm in the last 200 years ((http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_change/mans_impact/co2_millen.jpg).

            Very different from your own figures, which as the commented above points out are taken from the site "geocraft" which is infamously shit. Just funny to see you bemoaning other sites when you cite the shit which is geocraft. No doubt you will now have a problem with NASA too. I am betting any site that doesn't wet your climate denial will be rejected.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Maybe Climate Scientists should STFU and admit they know nothing and over stated it

              "CO2 is responsible for about 20% of the greenhouse effect (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/)"

              Only a small point, but your stated 20% is by itself not necessarily accurate. (Not to mention that it's really not possible to state with any large degree of certainty that a particular gas causes an absolute percentage of the greenhouse effect, for some very simple reasons).

              A wider trawl of data available on the web will reveal figures much more in line with Wikipedia's stated 9-26% contribution.

              There is still much uncertainty in the actual percentage contribution, although most agree on it's 'direction'.

              In simplified terms 17.25 +/- 8.5 would better reflect a current estimate.

              1. haloburn

                Re: Maybe Climate Scientists should STFU and admit they know nothing and over stated it

                Well the figure of 0.117% comes from here table 4a here:

                http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

                Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics

                % of Greenhouse Effect % Natural % Man-made

                Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%

                Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%

                Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%

                Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%

                Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%

                Perhaps the 20% figure comes from total CO2 if you exclude water vapour

                1. RanTalbott

                  Re: Or maybe geocraft.com should

                  "Well the figure of 0.117% comes from here table 4a here"

                  The first problem is that it appears to _originate_ there: if you look at the alleged source of that number, it doesn't appear there. But let's accept, arguendo, what seems to be a gross understatement of the anthropogenic contribution.

                  The other is your contention that such a small change can't have a catastrophic effect. If you really believe that, then try this simple experiment:

                  1. Put a fulcrum across the edge of a cliff.

                  2. Put a perfectly balanced beam across it.

                  3. Stand on one end.

                  4. Put a mass that's 100.117% of yours on the over-the-cliff end.

                  We'll wait over here...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Maybe Climate Scientists should STFU and admit they know nothing and over stated it

      It's fucking snowing here now!

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We've talked about this...

    Everyone with any sense knows man could NEVER have an affect on the climate and that the World trade centres were bought down by terrorists.

    All you others have too much brains for your own assimilation, I mean good.

  36. ckot
    WTF?

    1998 was exceptionally warm - the warming trend is very real

    1998 was an exceptionally warm year, so if you look only at 1998 to 2012, you don't see much of an increase. However, if you look at just about any other year in the last 50 years, you will see that things are consistently getting warmer.

    I can't believe this idiot is allowed to publish this stuff on The Reg.

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: 1998 was exceptionally warm - the warming trend is very real

      1. Is 50 years really that big a dataset? Is it so wrong to question this? 2. Of course, he is the editor.

      Or am I being trolled?

      C.

  37. Miami Mike
    Holmes

    Global warming might be a good thing

    If you refer to my screen name (which according to Heisenberg may or may not be accurate once you have referred to it), you will see where I live year-round.

    I have had the pleasure of experiencing London in November . . .

    You guys in the UK ought to be pushing for global warming for all you're worth - lovely country, wonderful people, but your weather sucks and not only do you admit it, you sometimes seem to take a perverse pride in it. Gotta have SOMETHING to whinge about, right?

    I don't miss snow AT ALL, I don't mind a longer growing season for my garden (or for farms) and the Dutch seem to have rising sea levels pretty much figured out. Just think, you could have palm trees in London!

    What I DO object to is the idea that raising taxes on the environmental villain du jour will somehow make everything OK - all it really does is line the pockets of the government. Did they take all the money and stuff it into the ozone hole over the south pole? No, they stuffed it into their own pockets - the ozone hole (allegedly) got smaller because we switched from using CFC's to more environmentally benign propellants for hair spray and auto air conditioners. (Yes, the earlier poster was right about bouffant hairdos heralding the end of civilization.) This was done by making CFCs illegal, not taxing the crap out of them.

    To reduce or even eliminate CO2 from hydrocarbon fuels will take a mass switch to nuclear power, and running as much as possible on electricity. Nuclear power plants don't contribute do global warming, and ONLY nuclear power plants can provide the scale of electricity we need. You and I complain about the power our water heaters use - can you imagine the cost of the electricity needed to refine aluminum? Of course, the Greens will NEVER agree to that, so they have to decide between three alternatives, nuclear, coal/oil pollution, or shivering in the dark. Let them decide for themselves, not for me.

    We can't TAX our way out of this problem, but we can THINK our way out of it, so lets get with it and do so!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Global warming might be a good thing

      Well there certainly is the benefit that the UK would be the new coast of the mediterranean as a side benefit of global warming....However at the disadvantage that large parts of the rest of the world will likely become uninhabitable and we will get hoards more scrounging heathens and terrorists heading here - and we have quite enough already....

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lewis never fails to amuse

    I have to thank Lewis for endlessly cheering my day by expounded such a continuous torrent of traditionalist science dogma. It's quite incredible and causes much mirth that humans can continuously think they know the correct and definitive answer to anything where history shows that for every rock solid theory, the passage of time and observation of new data, inevitably leads to new hypotheses. Thankfully our knowledge has evolved over time, pity our humility hasn't kept up to speed.

    Please keep up the good work, your efforts add a smile where none was sought!

  39. Simon Watson

    School Experiments

    That graph reminds me of the experiments I did in school melting and solidifying wax. At certain points in the cycle there would be no temperature change despite heat either being added or removed. This was due to the latent heat of melting.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021