Articles Tagged "David Whitehouse"
Sorted by:
Date Posted |
Views
Sunday, March 31st 2013, 8:09 AM EDT
The official watchdog that advises the Government on greenhouse gas emissions targets has launched an astonishing attack on The Mail on Sunday – for accurately reporting that alarming predictions of global warming are wrong.
We disclosed that although highly influential computer models are still estimating huge rises in world temperatures, there has been no statistically significant increase for more than 16 years.
Despite our revelation earlier this month, backed up by a scientifically researched graph, the Committee on Climate Change still clings to flawed predictions.
Wednesday, March 27th 2013, 3:55 PM EDT
The Committee on Climate Change has given its view on the much-discussed recent article on global warming predictions in the Mail on Sunday, written by David Rose. The article points out the disparity between model simulations of global warming and real data, suggesting that using models to formulate policy in such a situation might be unwise.
The Committee on Climate Change is an independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008. Its role is to advise the UK Government and Devolved Administrations on emissions targets, and report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change. It says it conducts independent analysis into climate change science, economics and policy.
Friday, March 15th 2013, 7:58 AM EDT
After reviewing the scientific literature the reports concludes that the standstill is an empirical fact and a reality that challenges current climate models. During the time that the Earth’s global temperature has remained static the atmospheric composition of carbon dioxide has increased from 370 to 390 ppm.
“The standstill is a reality and is not the result of cherry-picking start and end points. Its commencement can be seen clearly in the data, and it continues to this day,” said Dr David Whitehouse, the author of the new report.
The report shows that the temperature standstill has been a much discussed topic in peer-reviewed scientific literature for years, but that this scientific debate has neither been followed by most of the media, nor acknowledged by climate campaigners, scientific societies and prominent scientists.
Friday, March 8th 2013, 6:48 AM EST
Such reconstructions are important because they allow today’s global temperature to be placed into a historical context, possibly enabling some conclusions to be reached about distinguishing anthropogenic influence on climate from natural variability.
Thursday, March 7th 2013, 7:37 AM EST
Arctic sea ice is usually at its greatest extent in March so it is only now that we can see the 2012 freeze-melt cycle completely. Looking at Fig 1 the profile of 2012’s cycle is unusual. The downward trend in August was suddenly doubled making it very different from the melting seen in previous years.
This significant change of slope is the result of what is now being called the “Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012.” A vast area of low pressure arose in Siberia on August 2nd. It crossed the Arctic Ocean and went onto Canada. By August 6th the storm’s pressure was 966 mb, the lowest ever recorded for an Arctic storm. (It is difficult to get data from Arctic storms. Surface pressure is measured only on a few Arctic islands, on a few land based stations around the Arctic Ocean and on buoys.)
Friday, February 22nd 2013, 9:16 AM EST
GWPF Welcomes Dr Pachauri's Acknowledgement
London, 22 February: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) welcomes that Dr Rajenda Pachauri, the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has acknowledged the reality of the post-1997 standstill in global average temperatures. (see interview with Dr Pachauri in The Australian 22 February).
The GWPF has been highlighting the global warming standstill for many years against fervent denial by climate activists. Recently, Nasa’s James Hansen also recognised that global temperatures have not risen for more than a decade.
“Even though the scientific case for the standstill is secure, and well represented in peer-reviewed scientific literature, it will surely help the climate debate now that the IPCC chairman has confirmed its existence,” said Dr David Whitehouse, the GWPF’s science editor.
The post-1997 global annual average temperature standstill is one of the most important aspects of current climate science. Its recognition by the chair of the IPCC means there is now growing pressure that this empirical fact will receive full analysis in the forthcoming AR5 report.
The GWPF points out that Dr Pachauri’s assertion that it will take a temperature standstill of “30-40 years at least” to affect theories of man-made global warming is without a scientific basis. “The 17-year standstill already strains climate models, and if it continues for much longer it will demonstrate that the climate models on which the IPCC has based its assumptions are inadequate,” Dr Whitehouse said.
contacts:
Dr David Whitehouse - david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org
Dr Benny Peiser - benny.peiser@thegwpf.org
Saturday, January 26th 2013, 5:29 PM EST
I hade a look at the two Met Office global temperature datasets (Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4) from the recent David Whitehouse summary - Temperature Standstill Continues: 2012 Just Scrapes Into Top Ten posted at TheGWPF.org and as you can see I made an overlay indicating the very slight changes above 14.5.
These changes in datasets just show you how the debate has become one of splitting hairs rather then from real time recorded observations.
How long will it be when there is a Hadcrut5 to show another rise in temperature that is not there!
Thursday, January 17th 2013, 10:11 AM EST
The GWPF has been right all along. In a new report Hansen, Sato and Ruedy (2013) acknowledge the existence of a standstill in global temperature lasting a decade.
This is a welcome contribution to the study of global temperature. When others reached the same conclusion they have been ridiculed; so this admission should provide some pause for reflection by those who have attacked the very idea of a recent temperature standstill, often without understanding the data, focusing on who was making the argument and their alleged non-scientific motives.
According to Hansen et al. the Nasa Giss database has 2012 as the ninth warmest year on record, although statistically indistinguishable from the last 12 years, at least. Noaa says it’s the tenth warmest year. The difference is irrelevant.
Hansen discusses the possible contributions to global temperature in the past decade from stochastic variability and climate forcings. Personally I don’t think that the variations are demonstrably stochastic.
Monday, January 14th 2013, 11:58 AM EST
The reporting of the Met Office’s new half-decadal prediction of global temperatures, which now forecasts no rise in warming over the next five years (in sharp contrast to previous record warm forecasts) – has highlighted two lessons in reporting climate change. One is the violation of the old maxim that people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts – in climate change reporting it seems that facts can be flexible. The other is that it seems you can’t please anyone, anytime. Here is the BBC’s original broadcast of the recent Met Office forecast put out at 7.00 am Tuesday 8th January, BBC Radio 4.
Newsreader: The Met Office has revised downwards its projection for climate change through to 2017. The new figure suggests that although global temperatures will be forced above their long-term average because of greenhouse gases, the recent slowdown in warming will continue. More details from our environment analyst Roger Harrabin.
Roger Harrabin: Last year the Met Office projected that as greenhouse gases increase, the world’s temperature would be 0.54 degrees warmer than the long-term average by 2016. The new experimental Met Office computer model, looking a year further ahead, projects that the Earth will continue to warm, but the increase will be about 20% less than the previous calculation. If the new number proves accurate, there will have been little additional warming for two decades. The Met Office says natural cycles have caused the recent slowdown in warming, including maybe changes in the sun and ocean currents. Mainstream climate scientists say that when the natural cooling factors change again, temperatures will be driven up further by greenhouse gases.
I have said before that I did not think Roger’s script was very good, the use of figures was confusing in my view, but I think he did get the story basically right; that the Met Office has a new projection to 2017, based on a new computer model, and that will mean little additional warming for two decades (although I would have said none). He said the temperature slowdown was due to natural influences and that temperatures would eventually go up again.
Source Link:
thegwpf.org/
Tuesday, January 8th 2013, 5:40 PM EST
Global warming is not causing temperatures to rise as quickly as previously feared, the Met Office has claimed.
Today the weather agency released its revised forecast which was quickly seized upon by climate change skeptics who used the data to claim global warming has stopped.
In turn, the scientific community accused them of ignoring the weight of evidence showing that global warming is a reality, and accused the Met Office of 'falling short' of the standards expected of it.
The UK's national weather service recently changed its projections for climate change through to 2017, known as 'decadal forecasting', to show a marked difference to the rate at which the world's temperature will climb.
Updated below with more media links
76 articles found
showing page 1 of 8« previous 1 2 3 4 . . .
7 8 next »
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article