The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause

As the Anthropogenic Climate Change debate gets ever more heated and desperate it is worth perhaps commenting on the oft-used derogatory term ‘Climate Denier’ and its place in the global discussion. Commonly used to describe people who refuse to accept the scientific community’s belief that climate change is human driven and heading for disaster, this label is about to be turned on its head and come home to roost on the vitriolic heads of those who have thrown it around so carelessly.

As the years have gone by, the climate has steadfastly refused to toe the IPCC line of imminent disaster and has instead done what it has always done - normal climatic conditions interspersed with regular droughts, floods and storms. In other words, a normal day on planet earth.

One of the most telling events in this debate occurred in 2012 when a newspaper journalist reported that the UK METs data revealed that there had been ‘no statistically significant increase in temperature for 16 years’.  He provided a graph based on their own data and probably had good reason to think he had discovered something important.  What he didn’t realise is that he had actually discovered who real Climate Deniers are. The MET responded furiously, disputing his claim and saying that the earth was continuing to warm and there was no pause, despite their own data saying the exact opposite. This went on for about a year before the MET quietly accepted the indisputable truth of their own data and started putting articles online that ‘explained the pause’.  But the damage was already done. People were already seeing that supposedly intelligent scientists were following an agenda and not the science. The climate was saying one thing, but they were saying another.  They were in essence, Climate Deniers - the very term they had used so disparagingly for years.

And so as the earth refuses to warm and the shreaking cries of those defying the observations of a thoroughly disinterested natural climate grow louder and sillier, the term Climate Denier has found a new home, on the heads of ACC evangelists everywhere.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 9:27am:

http://doughboytoironman.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/tin_foil_hat.gif

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 9:27am:


Source please.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

A newspaper hack, because in longliars eyes hacks know more than scientists.

enjoy... 

peer reviewed, by buzzanddidj

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 11:04am:



go to their website and look for the articles on  'explaining the pause'

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 11:46am:


Thanks Longy - I found an interesting article titled "The recent pause in global warming: What are the potential causes?"

But my question was about your claim that the MET office insisted "there was no pause". You are just confirming that they acknowledged the pause - or in other words the exact opposite of what you claimed.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

we are CHANGING the definition Buzzard. 

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 3:05pm:

Antarctic is increasing its ice mass in areas where it shouldn't be,  while the arctic is melting, which shows a change in the climate conditions. It helps to read before making your stupid arguments:
http://theconversation.com/what-is-the-paradox-of-increasing-antarctic-sea-ice-r...

Keep avoiding science and believing in fairy tales. You're clearly good it.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 12:45pm:



I have said it many times before.  show me evidence of climatic conditions outside historical norms or even trending towards it.  you never do because NO ONE does and that is because such evidence does not exist.  every solitary prediction has failed by a country mile. every model is broken and climate refuses to do what you expect.  why should ANYONE believe the hysteria when nothing every happens as predicted?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 6:06pm:


The very fact that ice is increasing in Antarctica and melting in the arctic is evidence; evidence you choose to ignore.  What is it with you jebus worshipper a and your faith in fables but complete ignorance to science?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 9:27am:




longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 9:27am:




Quote:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 9:17am:


I can't believe you actually "teach' this stuff when you don't even understand what an average is. fme. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 2:02pm:


for around a year after the newpaper claim that there was no pause they furiously denied it and it went on and on and was rather embarrassing since it was their own data and it was as obvious as the nose on your face.  it wasn't the data that was interesting but rather the response to it.  the truth was ironically INCONVENIENT and they refused to accept it.  so how do we trust them now since we already know they deliberately misinterpret data?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 3:08pm:


Yes, Longy, we are back to square one.

That was the original claim you made and which I asked you to back up. Thats when you pointed me towards the MET article that directly contradicted your claim.

So I ask again, what is your basis for saying the MET office "furiously denied" that there was a pause in warming?

I think you know where I am going with this - there was no "furious denial", and there was no "embarassing" backpeddling by the MET office that would be consistent with them being the bumbling fools (or sinnister conspirators - take your pick) you are portraying them as. Their responses to the "pause" have been entirely consistent.

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

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.

As we’ve stressed before, 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. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.”

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

It is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet. Radiative forcing by greenhouse gases has continued unabated

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 12:33pm:


do you specialise in being obtuse?  the METs quote (from buzzard) was designed specifically to try and cover up the halt in warming.  It is a good example of when strict accuracy and truth are not the same thing.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 1:18pm:

Thank heavens I don't attend your "seminars." This statistic is a statistic which is independent of anything to do with the "supposed" halt in warming. It clearly shows that the average global temperatures have increased, does it not?

'Research shows surprise global warming 'hiatus' could have been forecast'

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/research-global-warming-hiatu...

Paper
'As part of the same study, Meehl and colleagues analyzed a total of 262 model simulations,'

'However, the naturally occurring variability in 10 of those simulations happened, by chance, to line up with the internal variability that actually occurred in the observations.'

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/12313/progress-decadal-climate-pr...

3.8% of models runs - 96.2% failure.

Or perhaps

http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png

Text

'Fig. 1.  Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen.  Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.  '

http://www.remss.com/research/climate

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 7:39pm:


why do you have to deflect from the topic?  there has been a 17year pause in global warming.  the most interesting point has been the stubborn refusal of so-called experts to accept it as fact despite the evidence being overwhelming.  what does that tell you about their intellectual integrity and their preconceived notions?  try dealing with that not inconsiderable issue.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:


How is an article that provides an explanation from a scientist deflecting?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 8:03pm:


because the topic is about climate deniers refusing to accept the verifiable fact that we aren't warming and how it impacts on their intellectual credibility.