A 16 Year Pause In Global Warming?

New global temperature trend data released by the Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in Britain find essentially no upward trend in global average temperatures since 1997. The Mail on Sunday in Britain reported:

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.

So what does this mean? The Mail cited the views of two climatologists, Judith Curry from Georgia Tech and Phil Jones from the CRU (and a figure in the Climategate kefuffle):

'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.

‘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.’

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom  line: the “no upward trend” has to  continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the  models’ gloomy predictions:  ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to  wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.

Meanwhile, his Met Office  colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘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.’

He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.

I reported back in 2007, the folks at the Hadley Centre at the United Nations climate change conference in Bali made an especially bold prediction about global temperature trends through 2014:

Most interestingly, and to its credit, the Hadley Centre has now gone out on a risky prediction limb. The Centre has combined its weather prediction model with a climate change model to make definite forecasts about the world's climate for the next decade. To wit: "We are now using the system to predict changes out to 2014. By the end of this period, the global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3 degrees Celsius compared to 2004, and half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998." Since various temperature records—surface, satellite and weather balloons—have shown a temperature trend that increases at about 0.2 degrees per decade or less, this is a truly bold prediction.

That prediction looks shakier and shakier.

Late last year, a study by Grant Foster (for those in the know, Grant is the climate blogger Tamino) and Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research analyzed temperature data from 1979 to 2010 taking into account the effects of El Ninos, volcanoes, solar variation and found a consistent upward temperature trend of +0.014 per year.

The satellite data mavens over at the University of Alabama in Huntington analyzed their 33 year record of temperature data and reported at the end of last year that the overall average global temperature trend is about +0.09 degrees per decade.

To enjoy some of the measured and polite discussion that so characterizes the global climate change debate head on over to Judith Curry's website Climate Etc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SugarFree||

    I think the link between this and the blasphemy article is pretty clear.

  • ||

    That link is "shakier and shakier", as Ron Bailey puts it, than Shakira's hips.

  • WTF||

    Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

    Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried

    The goalpost moving has become manic.

  • $park¥||

    This is all just so much bullshit, of course. Don't try to tell me you'll know what the temperature will be like in 20 years when you can't tell me what it will be tomorrow.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I hate to be that guy but predicting climate variation is not the same as predicting tomorrow's weather. I know I'll be wealthier in 14 years I don't know exactly what I'll be paid or am spending no rent.

  • $park¥||

    Bull, you don't know that you'll be wealthier in 14 years any more that I know I'll be alive in 14 years. I know that weather and climate are not the same thing. That doesn't change the fact the humans can predict neither.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    What if you get hit by a bus! Didn't think about that, did you Nostradamus?!

  • Paul.||

    Predicting climate variation is probably significantly harder than predicting tomorrow's temperature.

  • Jerry on the road||

    The statistics are computed differently, but I agree the way they compute them for "climate" is not really sound.

  • $park¥||

    Because no matter what you think, there is no sound way to predict the future. The world would be considerably different if there was.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's an inapposite comparison. Averages over a lot of data points (global mean temperatures over a full year) are much easier to predict than individual data points.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    I was starting to post some comments to mock, but there were so many of them that I can say is

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED

  • WTF||

    Apparently even the climate is an AGW denier.

  • Brian D||

    The earth probably believes it's flat, too.

  • fried wylie||

    Better than admitting it's a big, round fattyfatpants.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Good, but the statement about temps declining prior to 1980 seems a little dubious.

  • Azathoth!!||

    That's when they were 'next Ice Ageing' us.

  • Bee Tagger||

    A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading.

    Something everyone involved can agree on at this point.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Is there a computer model anywhere to predict how much more of this nonsense we will have to endure? Can't they just drop it and invent some new way to shift resources around the globe, the lazy fucks?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Well that's a guarantee, the rubes will always find something to blow everyone else's cash on.

  • Zeezrom||

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that AGW is pretty much played out. What is the next crisis going to be?

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that AGW is pretty much played out. What is the next crisis going to be?

    Access to potable water.

  • Zeezrom||

    And I suppose they'll come up with some model showing that first-worlders' use of potable water diminishes the potable water available to third-worlders.

  • $park¥||

    The Earth may be 2/3 covered by water, but it's not like you can just use reverse osmosis to make it drinkable.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    The Earth may be 2/3 covered by water, but it's not like you can just use reverse osmosis to make it drinkable.

    Of course you can, but that takes investment in RO plants and power plants. Where will the funds come from to build these plants and the associated distribution for the potable water?

    This is where you will see countries asking for money transfers from rich to poor.

  • $park¥||

    Where will the funds come from

    It's always about money with you people, isn't it?

    /sarc

  • fried wylie||

    1. STOP MINING SALT FROM UNDERGROUND, for fucks sake

    2. increase sea-salt evaporation efforts.

    The water will find its way to somewhere useful.

  • robc||

    Access to potable water.

    There is a reason beer and wine were used for millenia.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    There is a reason beer and wine were used for millenia.

    I knew I should have said fresh water instead of potable. You cannot make beer and wine from salt water (can you?). But my point stands.

    Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy. - Ben Franklin
  • Whiterun Guard||

    Climate stagnation?

  • ||

    There are poor people freezing to death on the Tibetan Plateau!!!

  • Paul.||

    Food desserts...

  • ||

    What is the next crisis going to be?

    Quantum multiverse pollution.

    Apparently by allowing poeple to make choices they create multiple universes...now some universes are OK but too many and we could start creating universes filled with frog extinctions and racism.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    If the planet's not getting warmer, the governments of the world need to DO something about that!

  • sloopyinca||

    I still don't understand all the uproar about global warming or climate change. Every single model out there uses massaged data or computer models designed to come to a predetermined conclusion. Many of the raw data stations have been corrupted due to population migrations or downright fraud. The involved scientists tend to be secretive in their methodology and there is no proof that warming is a bad thing overall.

    Seriously, if our "climate scientists" worried more about limiting pollution and creating clean air as opposed to cutting carbon emissions, then maybe we would be progressing as a society toward a cleaner earth. But these people are more concerned with taking money from one set of people and giving it to another (for a nominal fee, of course), more "oppressed" group with no discernible benefit coming from the transfer...just because it makes them feel good about themselves.

    Fuck global warming. Fuck the abandonment of the scientific method. And fuck those that would profit from this fear-mongering bullshit.

  • ||

    That's a lot of fucking, right that. -)))

  • fried wylie||

    Used condoms ruining the environment, crisis at 11!

  • $park¥||

    You think they'll make a commercial where they show used condoms laid end-to-end stretching across some bit of unblemished countryside?

  • fried wylie||

    Think? I'm already packing up the camcorder and a crate of condoms, and my airfare is booked. Somebody will pay for the footage...

  • $park¥||

    If that thing airs, we'll all pay. (IYKWIMAITYD)

  • fried wylie||

    Long as my check clears before the climategeddon descends.

  • db||

    Go to a sewage treatment plant and check out the trash racks.

    I was at the City of Richmond WWTP years ago and there were thousands of dried up used condoms and tampons that would blow off the racks and then caught up in a little cyclone that blew around the plant. You want to know what Armageddon looks like? It's a tornado of tampons and prophylactics chasing you across a parking lot.

  • $park¥||

    Man can build an atomic bomb, therefore man can predict the future of a system that has a period several thousand times longer than their lifespan. Right?

  • ||

    If man can go to the moon....

  • sarcasmic||

    Look, pumping all these gasses into the atmosphere can't not have an effect. I mean, it must have some effect. It just must. There's no way that it couldn't.
    So it's not a matter of figuring out if human activity is harming the planet, but how much.
    Anyone who disagrees is intolerant, and tolerant people don't have to tolerate intolerance.

  • fried wylie||

    What I can't understand is why legislatures around the world have not joined together to place a ban on volcanoes.

  • fried wylie||

    (the concept is at least as sound as banning man's attempts to alter his consciousness)

  • db||

    Two words: Tourist Dollars. It's all about what's good for Big Volcano.

  • T o n y||

    Everything you wrote is a lie.

  • sarcasmic||

    How much to cross the bridge?

  • OldMexican||

    "What is the capital of Andorra?"

  • $park¥||

    Tony, the ultimate solipsist?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: sloopyinca,

    there is no proof that warming is a bad thing overall.

    There's evidence! Don't you see? The skiing season at the Matterhorn is at risk! Why, where would all the rich Euro politicians and very-lovely-people spend their vacations if these awful and stinking rubes keep lighting their homes with petroleum? Huh? HUH?

  • sarcasmic||

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, I guess we can only sit back and wish they would have set up some kind of "Climate Change Jonestown" and gone down a different path.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    BLASPHEMER!

  • Zeezrom||

  • tarran||

    That's already Hansen's MO.

    Back in the 70's he was at the forefront of the We're-slipping-into-a-new-ice-age alarm.

    Significantly, his cure for keeping the Earth out of was a command and control economy to wean people off of overuse of fossil fuels.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is no problem that cannot be solved with the proper application of violence.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I wish somebody would stangle Hansen's tax leech career.

  • ||

    He is 71.

    He will be dead soon enough.

  • fried wylie||

    Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete.

    "but"? "and so", "therefore", sure. but, "but"?

    I'm not claiming that scientists need an additional degree in english, BUT, that sort of language can be directly derived from the logic of the system you're describing.

  • The Knuckle||

    I loved that the same people decrying a new ice age (and where wrong) are the same people telling us we are going to burn up in a worldwide inferno. Are we responsible for warming on other planets, which was happening at the time we were experiencing warming?

  • fried wylie||

    "I got the sign wrong in my math. I might be a scientist, but remembering that a positive times a negative is always a negative, and a neg time a neg is always positive. Cmon, that shit is complicated."

    -Love,
    Climatoligists

  • sarcasmic||

    i would beg to differ.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Now you're just imagining things.

  • db||

    Don't worry. Whent it comes to real numbers it's normal for this kind of discussion to result.

  • ElCiD||

    Global warming!? Global cooling!? I just really need the government to come out and tell me which lightbulbs I have to buy.

  • Jordan||

    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.

    Buh? Well no shit!

  • OldMexican||

    "Yet he [Prof. Phill Jones] insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said."

    He sounds like one of those gamblers that rationalize a losing streak.

  • Jerry on the road||

    As long as you keep increasing your bets after each loss...

  • Pudgeboy||

    He's lying. The pause was totally unexpected to the warmists. He admits this in the Climategate emails.

  • OldMexican||

    Of course he's lying. What else can he do? Admit he was nothing more than a hack all these years? He will simply dismiss the whole thing with a contention of popular knowledge.

    "Oh, we alredy knew that!"

  • OldMexican||

    Meanwhile, his [Phill Jones'] Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: '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.'

    Does anybody else smell a cop-out in that statement?

    So NOW the variability of a climate system makes it pertinent to consider "multi-decadal" timescales, which is like plugging your ears with your fingers and yelling "Either way I still win, bitches!"

  • Franklin Harris||

    University of Alabama in Huntsville.

  • wareagle||

    is there a point? Huntsville is home to a space center and a raft of tech companies. And, it's a university in the UA system. I mean, it's no East Anglia but I can find UAH on a map.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Yes. The point is the article mistakenly says "University of Alabama in Huntington."

  • wareagle||

    I love this quote: 'The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’

    Not a halt, not an end, but a pause as though we should take it on faith that warming will resume at some point that the models have yet to identify. Then again, faith is the operative word. This whole thing of AGW is an article of faith.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: wareagle,

    I love this quote: 'The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’


    They found evidence that somebody TiVoed global warming. That's an important finding! It proves the existence of God.

  • OldMexican||

    The satellite data mavens over at the University of Alabama in Huntington analyzed their 33 year record of temperature data and reported at the end of last year that the overall average global temperature trend is about +0.09 degrees per decade.

    That should worry everybody because, if that trend continues, the Earth will light up and become the Sun's twin star in about 1.33 billion years.

  • wareagle||

    and the same folks who made a killing selling bunkers to folks afraid of nukes or some other apocalypse are busy as we speak working on their next money-maker.

  • ||

    IIRC, in one and a third billion years the Sun will be along its red giant evolution phase far enough that all water will be boiled away from the Earth's surface.

  • fried wylie||

    by then, exported mass used in Man's diaspora into space will have shifted Earth's orbit further out. Booyah.

  • ||

    Yes. And supposedly the Sun have lost some of its mass by that time so the planets' orbits are further out.

    Although it is hard to make predictions that far out, at least no one has to fear being called on being wrong.

  • Pudgeboy||

    I'm at the point with this nonsense, that I'd rather debate whether that is, in fact, the Virgin Mary burned into my grilled-cheese sandwich than this issue. Warmists are ignorant, dumb or both...

  • ||

    The Met Office responds to the Daily Mail"

    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.

    Essentially, the Daily Mail is cherry-picking its starting point.

    Linked in the Met Office response is a telling graph. The hottest years in the 140-year record are dominated by 2000 and after. I don't suppose Bailey is going to link to the Met Office post and graph and explain why the Daily Mail is running a misdirection campaign.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Jersey Patriot,

    The hottest years in the 140-year record are dominated by 2000 and after.


    Sure. Except for the fact that the SLOW trend from 1997-2012 (in the graph you're linking to) contradicts the predictions made by the computer models and do show a plateau - just like the new data shows. Didn't you notice that, or were too busy celebrating?

  • Cytotoxic||

    So they countered the DM's supposed cherry-picking with...cherry picking.

    he hottest years in the 140-year record are dominated by 2000 and after.

    AS WOULD BE EXPECTED ON A PLATEAU.

  • T o n y||

    First, I will assume without reading through your posts that all the so-called climate change skeptics are dismissing these data as readily as they dismiss all other similarly derived data, and that they are surely not accepting only the data that fit their preconceived and unchanging view of the subject. The scientists involved are all charlatans, right?

    Anyway, the article's premise and the graphic that accompanies it are clear-cut examples of cherry picking. It's like when Veronique de Rugy shows a graph of tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, shows they were 18% in 1975 or whatever, and 18% in 2003 or whatever, hence from 1975 to 2003 tax rates as a proportion of GDP didn't change from 18%!!!! Pick a span starting in 1979 for warming and you see a trend. More important a fact, I think, than there being a plateau in a cherry-picked non-multidecadal timespan, is that each decade for the last few has been warmer than the prior one. Oh, and the ice caps are melting.

  • ||

    each decade for the last few

    Watch yourself picking that huge cherry, you might get a hernia...

  • T o n y||

    The criteria is several decades (not 16 years). The 2000s were hotter than the 1990s, the 1990s hotter than the 1980s. Eight of the hottest years on record were in the last decade.

  • Enough About Palin||

    And the 70's were hotter than fuck.

  • $park¥||

    So in other words, you don't know how to do science. Thanks for clearing that up.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Anyway, the article's premise and the graphic that accompanies it are clear-cut examples of cherry picking.

    A painter came to my house. I asked him to paint the whole house oyster white. He painted it that color except for the garage, for which he used this weird yellowish, clam color. When confronting him about it, his reply was "You're just cherry-picking!"

    It's like when Veronique de Rugy shows a graph of tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, shows they were 18% in 1975 or whatever, and 18% in 2003 or whatever, hence from 1975 to 2003 tax rates as a proportion of GDP didn't change from 18%!

    The 18% revenue line can be traced back to the 1930's, Tony. And that's not cherry-picking. In fact, it is amazing that you still entertain the idea that people do not modify their behavior when facing changing opportunity costs. It only cna mean you're being a blockhead.

    [...] is that each decade for the last few has been warmer than the prior one.

    No, they haven't. The data shows that the AVERAGE temperature obtained from temperature collecting sites, after a lot of statistical massaging, shows a warming trend. That does not mean this decade was particularly warmer than the last.

    Oh, and the ice caps are melting.

    Not the Antartic. The ice in the Antartic keeps growing.

    There's something else here at work besides the facile "Man is eeeeeevil!" explanation.

  • T o n y||

    Your garage story is a completely nonsensical analogy.

    I've debunked the 18% thing many times. Revenues do fluctuate with changes in tax policy, just not so much that you'd notice it much on a 100-point scale, which people peddling the untrue bullshit that tax rates have no effect on revenue like to use.

    Climate change myths. See Number 10 on Antarctic sea ice. Read through others if you are so inclined, as you've no doubt bought into many of them.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Your garage story is a completely nonsensical analogy.

    I thought it was perfectly appropriate, knowing your lack of intellectual honesty.

    I've debunked the 18% thing many times.

    You must be on drugs. You haven't done such a thing.

    Revenues do fluctuate with changes in tax policy, just not so much that you'd notice it much on a 100-point scale, which people peddling the untrue bullshit that tax rates have no effect on revenue like to use.

    Looks like you lack any sort of formative experience with mathematics. Even when the top rate was close to 90 fucking percent, revenues never broke the 20% GDP barrier.

    See Number 10 on Antarctic sea ice.

    They're pretty bad, Tony. Those explanations are pretty. I found some of the doozies the most remarkable:

    "In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions"

    Like these guys never cooked in a Dutch Oven in their entire life.

    "Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books."

    Yeah, and he invented the internet - he said so himself. I don't know if you find pleasure in making a fool if yourself or letting others fool you, but you should see a therapist.

  • T o n y||

    Even when the top rate was close to 90 fucking percent, revenues never broke the 20% GDP barrier.

    The denominator is the GDP! Fluctuations between 15 and 20 percent represent a huge amount of money. You just don't notice it when the scale is 100 and the line looks relatively flat. This is a myth perpetuated entirely by misleading charts.

    So got nothing in response to that thorough list of debunked bullshit you believe? A dig at Al Gore? How frightening that the fate of the planet's biosphere rests on Al Gore's credibility.

  • DJK||

    The whole point is that there has never been a point in American history in which revenues have exceeded 20% of GDP. Never. Yet current federal spending is what, 24% of GDP? And is expected to remain above 20% of GDP for at least a decade, no matter whether you look at the Obama or Ryan budget plan.

    It's simple accounting. If spending exceeds revenue, a loss will accrue. Here, the loss is an increase in the federal debt, which causes all sorts of problems such as an increase in the amount of money that must go towards maintaining that debt (interest), etc. Couple that with problems caused by such high government spending, such as the public crowding out effect, and this is a true concern.

  • DJK||

    Your point about the difference between 15% of GDP and 20% of GDP being massive is correct. And, assuming your same ideas, the difference between 24% of GDP (spending) and 18% of GDP (historical revenues) is also massive. I'm sure you won't see this as a problem even though you raised the issue yourself. Try to take a consistent approach with the numbers.

  • DJK||

    This whole idea that the numbers would look different if we didn't normalize to GDP is absolutely absurd. Go ahead and plot without normalizing. What you will see is two curves (one of revenues and one of spending) which are fairly well represented by exponential functions. Over time, they will split apart, with the spending curve diverging upward from the revenue curve. The difference between the curves is the deficit curve. The integral of the deficit curve is the debt.

    It doesn't matter how the numbers are displayed. In either case, they show the same thing, because they are mathematically equivalent.

  • DJK||

    Note that this sort of "misleading chart" thing (taking logarithms, normalizing, etc) is done all the time in the sciences and engineering to make the data easy to interpret. This is totally accepted by anyone with any knowledge of calculus and statistics. So, why is it ok in the sciences and note in the debt debate?

  • DJK||

    Oh, and I'm sure that I'll be told that my contention about how data are presented in the sciences is totally wrong. In anticipatory response, I have a PhD in physics from a reputable school (Berkeley) and have published my fair share of peer-reviewed scientific articles, all of which required presentation of some sort of data.

  • ||

    are dismissing these data as readily as they dismiss all other similarly derived data

    Yes.

    The Met office fucking sucks at everything they do.

    The Huntsville guys say 0.09 per decade for the past 33 years. They are probably right.

    Anyway, the article's premise and the graphic that accompanies it are clear-cut examples of cherry picking.

    Everyone has noticed the warming plateau. Even the climategate emails mention that there has been little warming since 1998. "there has been no warming...and it is a tradgedy"

  • DemosTheKnees||

    No upward trend in global average temperatures since 1997.

    Doesn't this prove that Green efforts are working?
    Cool, they win.
    Hot, they win.

  • ||

    Sounds like the drug war. Drug use goes down? "It's working, we need more!" It goes up? "It's not working, we need more!"

  • DemosTheKnees||

    Yup. Classic argument for more.

  • robc||

    Is reasonable broken for any other chrome users?

  • SugarFree||

    It's working for me.

  • buybuydandavis||

    ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    Hmmm. He'll get worried if there *isn't* warming.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement