Articles Tagged "Reply To Article"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Tuesday, October 16th 2012, 4:57 PM EDT
Although the silence that has spread over the mainstream media and “climate community” has been deafening, skeptic blogs on the other hand have been stepping in earnestly to inform the public on what the climate is really doing. The blogosphere has been ablaze over the last few days.
In Germany the media has been dead silent on the news that warming has stopped. There’s a simple reason for that: In Europe, good news is bad news.
Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt have published their take on the official HadCRUT confirmation that there’s been no warming since even before Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick fabrication was first released.
New HadCRUT data confirm: global temperature has not risen in 16 years by Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (Translation/editing: Pierre Gosselin)
Tuesday, October 16th 2012, 6:19 AM EDT
The UK Met Office display the above graph prominently on their website. It is the temperature plot, based on the long running CET (Central England Temperature series).
The message is clear. Temperatures suddenly started climbing rapidly around 1980, a classic hockey stick.
If you look closely, you will notice that the graph begins just before 1780. Yet the CET series actually began in 1659, so why did not the Met show the full graph?
I have used exactly the same data, which is available on the Met Office website here, to produce the graph below for the full period.
Monday, October 15th 2012, 6:22 PM EDT
A reply to Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012, from sunshinehours.wordpress.com
“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.”
Ok, lets look at a non-arbitrary endpoint (the last datapoint) and go back in 5 year increments.
HADCRUT4 Last 5 years colder than previous 5 years
Mean of the anomaly of the last 5 years = .45C
Mean of the anomaly of the previous 5 years = .49C
Mean of the anomaly of the previous previous 5 years = .41C
HADCRUT3 – Last 5 years colder than previous AND colder than the previous previous 5.
Monday, October 15th 2012, 6:30 AM EDT
GLOBAL warming stopped 15 years ago, it was claimed last night.
Met Office figures show that the average temperature between 1997 and 2012 did not rise at all and that the previous warming trend has levelled off. But critics say the Met Office put this research onto the Internet without publicity - in contrast to the attention it gave to figures released six months ago which reinforced the case for global warming.
Those figures went up to 2010 - the hottest year on record - and showed a continuing warming trend.
Campaigners yesterday slammed the Met Office tactics and questioned the Government's drive for costly green energy such as wind turbines which add about £100 a year to domestic energy bills.
Dr Benny Peiser of Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation said: "It is quite scandalous that the Met Office is misleading the public.
Source Link: express.co.uk
Monday, October 15th 2012, 6:09 AM EDT
for bigger image
In response to an article in the Mail On Sunday that points out the absence of a recent temperature rise in the Met Office’s newly released Hadcrut4 global temperature database the UK Met Office released a statement that is misleading.
The Mail On Sunday article uses the Met Office’s Hadcrut4 database that was updated from 2010 to the present day last week.
We live in the warmest decade of the instrumental era (post-1850), and most of the warmest years have occurred in the past decade, but what the Met Office ignores to say is that, at present, we live on a temperature plateau – there is no recent upward trend in global temperature.
The Met Office says that the world has warmed by 0.03 deg C per decade since 1997 based on their calculation of the gradient in the Hadcrut4 dataset. But what the Met Office doesn’t say is that this is statistically insignificant. The gradient of the trendline in Hadcrut4 is very sensitive to the start and end dates used as temperatures vary significantly month-to-month, so the Met Office is being misleading in quoting trendlines for a particular start and end date without taking into account how the scatter of the data, the errors in the temperature measurements, and short-term changes affect the statistical confidence in the resulting trendline.
Sunday, October 14th 2012, 3:58 PM EDT
Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012
- Met Office
An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’
It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.
To address some of the points in the article published today:
Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.
Monday, October 1st 2012, 6:59 AM EDT
Runaway global warming gets more negative feedback
Salt marshes and similar types of coastal terrain could act naturally to fight global warming by absorbing increasing amounts of carbon in a warming world, scientists have found. Even better, salt marshes' carbon-sequestering effects would actually be increased sea-level rise.
Salt marshes, mainly made up of specialised grasses and their root systems, are a common type of coastal environment. They trap silt, serving to build up the elevation of the coastline and so resist storms and flooding. As the seas rise, the marsh rises too, as professor Matt Kirwan (Virginia uni) explains:
“One of the cool things about salt marshes is that they are perhaps the best example of an ecosystem that actually depends on carbon accumulation to survive climate change: The accumulation of roots in the soil builds their elevation, keeping the plants above the water,” says the prof.
According to a statement announcing Kirwan and his colleagues' new research into salt-marsh carbon effects:
Tuesday, September 4th 2012, 5:43 AM EDT
To Matt Peterson, Huffpostgreen, and Chris Matthews,
Your article on sea level rise contains ridiculous predictions.
Based on the present rate of sea level rise, which even your article pegs at about 2 millimeters per year, the rise for the next century would only be about 8 inches, not three feet! Statements that it is accelerating are pure nonsense. Worldwide, there has been no warming in the last 14 years. Only in the United States have we had a warm year so far after a very cold winter two years ago.
At the same time the Arctic regions have been colder than normal for the past 12 months. The Southern hemisphere has also had no warming. The major icecaps are not melting and the South Pole ice is getting thicker..
This all adds up to no acceleration of sea level rise. No one knows whether our climate will get warmer or colder in the next century. This will be governed by the sun and the ocean oscillations.
James Macdonald, retired meteorologist
Thursday, August 30th 2012, 10:31 AM EDT
If Prof. Frank had done his science homework by researching the totality of the climatological data rather than regurgitating the cherry-picked, fear mongering hysteria of environmental lobbyists, he would have realized that a carbon tax will have no effect either on atmospheric CO2 or the weather.
His "hottest 12 month period of record" in the US was accompanied by average global temperatures that were quite normal. Blocking high pressures are quite common during the warmer months. They give cloudless skies when the Sun is nearest to Zenith, descending air which is adiabatically heated and dried, giving heat waves and droughts. They are quite common and have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. The recent one in the U S was rather mild compared to the ones in the mid 1930's that gave us the "dust bowl" at a time when human CO2 emission was much lower than it is today.
So in case the Times is really interested in presenting an accurate analysis rather than aiding and abetting one of the greatest frauds in the history of science, I have attached an article for your consideration, in the hope that you will at least begin to set the record straight on this issue.
The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide by Dr. Martin Hertzberg
I served as a forecasting and research meteorologist while on active duty with the U. S. Navy. It was then that I first learned what climatologists and meteorologists have known for centuries and what the current crop of so-called “climate scientists” and EPA administrators apparently never learned: that weather and climate are controlled by natural laws on an enormous scale that dwarfs human activity. Those laws engender forces and motions in our atmosphere and oceans that are beyond human control. Weather and climate existed long before humans appeared on Earth, and will continue to exist in the same way long after we are gone.
Saturday, August 18th 2012, 7:03 AM EDT
Re: Survey finds two per cent of respondents don't believe climate change is happening, by Jennifer Graham, The Canadian Press, Aug. 15.
Queen's University Prof. John Smol is right to say that it's "discouraging how slowly the science seems to have been translated into public policy and public opinion."
If science was driving climate policy, then we would have no carbon dioxide regulations at all, since the global warming scare is so weak scientifically.
Smol is totally mistaken to say that "the science has been in for a long time." As I showed the 1,500 students I taught for the past three years at Carleton University, the science of climate change is immature and discoveries are regularly being made that overturn previously popular ideas.
A quick check of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change shows that literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published that disprove Smol's overconfident statement.
Sadly, the public opinion poll Smol was commenting on failed to ask the most important question of all, "Do you believe that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities are causing dangerous global warming and other problematic climate change?"