Met Office admits global warming has slowed down over the past 10 years


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Progress! The Met Office of the UK admitted in a report today that global warming has slowed down over the past 10 years.

Link fixed. Sorry!

Share

7 comments

  • Dan Pangburn

    Completely stopped would be more accurate.

    The factors that resulted in the 20th century global temperature run-up have been discovered. The contribution of atmospheric carbon dioxide is between small and insignificant. The time-integral of sunspot numbers and effective sea surface temperature are the main contributors.

    A simple equation, with inputs of accepted measurements from government agencies, calculates the average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy (87.6% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). See the equation, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10 and 6/27/10).

    The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.

  • taka

    [your daily mail link is broken – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1333225/Global-warming-slowing-say-scientists.html%5D

    What they actually said was the rate at which temperatures were rising has slowed down, not that it has stopped or reversed. It’s still going up.

    Dan, your link states that the agt has declined between 2001 and 2009, when in fact the opposite is true.

    [from daily mail article] “However researchers from the Met Office say there is still a warming trend over the 10 years since 2000 and the decade was the hottest on record.”

    Having spent a year (2009) living in the Arctic, i can tell you first hand that global warming is a alive and well there. E.g. mosquitos 700 miles north of the Arctic circle during summer months.

    Regardless of causes, we should be doing what we can to reduce and eventually eliminate pollution, instead of socializing it onto society and the environment. Pollution is a socialized cost of production of all products. One would think that self-described capitalists who apparently despise socialism would be abhorrent to this form of socialism too… but unfortunately they are not abhorrent to hypocrisy.

    My two cents.

  • taka, who cares? I’ve yet to hear anyone make an argument to justify why we should do anything to stem global warming. No-one has made an accurate scientific prediction of this “doomsday” that we’re continuingly being told is right around the corner. Many areas of the Earth are essentially uninhabitable during winter months.. for all we know the on-balance effect of global warming could be for the better.

    It seems a lot of people think change == bad, and can’t conceive of the possibility that change can be good.

  • Dan Pangburn

    Taka,
    I monitor all five reporting agencies and they agree fairly well as graphed on page 9 of the pdf made public 4/10/10 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. As can be seen the average global temperature trend from 2001 through 2009 is down.
    The agt anomalies (no offsets) averaged for each year for the five agencies are as follows.
    YEAR AVG
    1998 0.55
    1999 0.23
    2000 0.22
    2001 0.37
    2002 0.45
    2003 0.44
    2004 0.38
    2005 0.48
    2006 0.41
    2007 0.42
    2008 0.28
    2009 0.42

    The data can be verified using the following links to the five agencies:

    NOAA
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

    Hadley
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    GISS
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    RSS
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/upper-air/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean.txt

    UAH
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

  • taka

    Trent, if you’re perfectly happy with pollution, maybe you should live down wind of a large manufacturing plant or coal power plant; even natural gas distribution generators (not positive what they’re called, but they pump natual gas through the pipes running around the country) are unhealthy to live near.

    Pollution is a socialized cost of production. Why not make producers bear that cost? It will likely increase product costs (unless they find cleaner methods of production), but health care costs should also lower (for private or government provided health care).

    What ‘accurate scientific prediction’ are you looking for. Temperatures are rising, as the Daily Mail points out. Particulate pollution actually masks global warming. (Which if you’re a geo-engineering buff, might be a good thing. Personally, there are too many unknowns with deliberately injecting pollutants into the environment)

    I’m well aware that parts of the Earth are uninhabitable during winter months (I lived for 12 months in northern Greenland… everything was shipped/flown in)

    As for change, it can be good and bad. Good if you live in rich northern latitude countries that have exported production and associated costs, bad if you live in a low lying coastal region. Those people are the people that “care”.

    We will likely have to live with climate change; question is, do we make it more difficult later by doing nothing now? Populations will be forced to move, increasing pressures on existing resources (land/water), which will lead to conflict.

    So yeah, I care too. It impacts our economy (especially if we ignore the growing demand for cleaner technologies), our security and our health.

  • Dan Pangburn

    Zim,
    So, you censor links to facts from me but print Taka’s erroneous and misguided opinions. I’m out of here.

  • Dan Pangburn

    Note to all: My post was, probably because of all those links, caught by a spam trap. My hat is off to Zim. He overrode the trap and added the post. It is the 28 Nov. post which appears above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *