by JP Bill - 11/3/12 9:29 PM
In Reply to: A couple of days ago... by J. Vega
No, Global Warming Hasn't 'Stopped'
So what's the story? It should first of all be pointed out that, contrary to the headline's claims, the Met Office didn't "quietly release" any report - it simply updated its ongoing temperature data set. It should also be pointed out that a scientist whom Rose quoted as saying that the news showed climate models are 'deeply flawed' in fact insists she said no such thing.
The key point here is in the arbitrary starting point. Climate scientists note that while the underlying long-term trend is unmistakable, it can be masked by short-term natural variations. And 1998 was an exceptionally hot year as a result of a very strong El Nino that created a lot of atmospheric warming. (In fact, it currently occupies the bronze medal position, behind 2005 and the race-leading 2010.) Move the starting point to 1999, and the picture changes considerably.
'Pause' discussion thread
David Rose has published a provocative article in the Daily Mail entitled Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released . . . and here is the chart to prove it. The two main people that were interviewed were myself and Phil Jones. Here is the meat of the article in terms of my and Phil Jones' statements:
Overall, I would say that this is a very good article; I think the exchange between me and Jones, mediated by Rose, is an important one. However, I am not happy with this statement in the early part of the article:
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America's prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were 'deeply flawed'.
I have no idea where the 'deeply flawed' came from, I did not use these words in any context that Rose should be quoted (perhaps I used them somewhere on my blog?) Also, I agree that 16 years is too short, given the timescales of the PDO and AMO, to separate out natural versus anthropogenic variability (but this cuts both ways: the warming period between 1980 and 1998 was arguably amped by the PDO and AMO).
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)