from :: Asahikawa Hokkaido


primetime pencil




Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
source : 2012.10.13 Daily Mail (ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)
  • The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
  • This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

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’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.

Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.

At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

■Flawed science costs us dearly

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.

It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.

This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.

Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘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.’

He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.

Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.

Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.

Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.

The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.

So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.


Post a Comment :: Click!!


 ■Sponsored Link

韓国大統領 月山明博(李明博)の…天皇陛下への「不敬発言」
手法 用例 手法 用例 手法 用例 手法 用例
連想の創出 愛国者に対して「軍靴の音が聞こえそうだ」などと揶揄し否定的な印象を与える… コメント 人々を一定の方向に誘導するために「事実とは異なる解釈」をコメントさせたり「社説」にする… プレゼンス効果 現場からの中継や縮小ジオラマなどで「臨場感」を演出し「やらせ」も交えて信用されやすくする… 分類表 一部の「ネット右翼」が批判しています…のように決まった単語・フレーズで事象を分類して極小化・極大化する…
撹乱 「第三極も含めて政党が乱立して訳が分かりません…」などと連日「情報ノイズ」で溢れさせ興味自体を失わせる… 癒着提案 TBS「安倍官房長官印象操作映像事件」のように「個別の事実」を「継ぎ接ぎ」して「誤った印象」を植え付ける… 匿名の権威 「信頼すべき消息筋によれば…」のように情報元を明かす必要がない事を逆手に取り記事の内容に権威を与える… 日常会話 お隣の「韓国」では…のように本来否定的な要素「韓国」を日常会話のように繰り返し心理的習熟効果で反応を麻痺させる…
感情共鳴 コンサートで開催場所の地名を大声で繰り返し叫ぶ…などのように「デモ」「集会」などで群集を理性ではなく感情レベルで反応させる… 歴史の書き換え 民主党の「天皇制廃止」「戸籍法廃止」「夫婦別姓」などの愛国心を低下させるための国家・民族全体に対する長期的な情報操作… 感情整列 この時間にご覧になっている貴方だけに限定100セットだけ…などと「一定のシチュエーション」を用意して群集の感情を「均一化」させる… 一次効果 「朝日新聞の従軍慰安婦捏造問題」「iPS細胞での読売新聞大誤報」など「最初に発信された情報」は嘘でも捏造でも信用されやすいという原理…
ブーメラン 坂本龍一・山本太郎などの著名人を使い原発管制報道に対する「自由の闘士」を作り出し国力を削るために「愛国者」を装った抗議運動を展開する… 心理的ショック 日本は豊かなのだと錯覚させ更に絞り取るために「飢餓」を伝え…日本は悪い事をしたと日本人を自虐的に思い込ませるために繰り返し「戦争」を伝えます… 半真実 「マニュフェストが実現出来なかったのは自民党の負の遺産のせいで民主党がダメだった訳ではない…」のように嘘の中に一面的な真実を織り込み全体を真実に見せる… フィードバック 「支持政党無しの無党派層は過去最高」という結果を得るために世論調査の回答項目に「民主党もダメだけど自民党もダメ」という項目を設定し全体の意見に偽装する…
すり替え 「傷害」を「いじめ」「窃盗」を「万引き」「殺人事件」を「交通事故」「テロリスト」を「レジスタンス」「略奪事件」を「抗議デモ」など受け入れ易い言葉に置き換える婉曲手法… 脅威の創出 尖閣購入時に「中国の脅威」は民主党政権以降に尖鋭化していたにもかかわらず恰も「都知事発言以降に尖鋭化した」かの如く捏造し民主党には他に選択肢は無かったと責任転嫁… 社会的同意 首相の靖国参拝に「外国」から激しい反発が起こっている…などと…特定アジアだけの意見を恰も世界全体が同意していると錯覚させる…「人権擁護法案」「外国人参政権」などもこの手法… 側面迂回 民主党の原発事故対応では線量などの周辺情報は正確に報じられ枝野幸男の「直ちに健康に影響を及ぼすものではない…」の嘘の信憑性を高めメルトダウン・風向きなどの核心部分は隠蔽された…
虚偽類似 「視聴率低迷は若者のテレビ離れのせい…」「CDが売れないのは違法ダウンロードのせい…」「紅白歌合戦に韓流スターが出演できないのは日本の右傾化のせい…」など都合の良い「原因と結果の因果関係」を作り出す… 事実確認 原発安全神話を作り出したのも公共事業にジャブジャブ税金をつぎ込んだのも自民党です…など…「一面的な事実」を先に述べ「事実確認」させ…自民党政権に逆もどりして良いんですか?…と未来を誤認・錯覚させる… 毒入りサンドウィッチ 「白川総裁が自民党の経済政策を批判」「安倍総裁の経済政策発言を市場が好感し円安に振れ株価は年初来の高値」「一方でハイパーインフレを懸念する声も」…のように序文と結論の否定的報道で肯定的な報道を挟み肯定的な報道の意義を低下させる… 砂糖入りサンドウィッチ 毒入りサンドウィッチの逆の手法…

「jQuery」と「jQuery UI」で HTML に彩りを添えよう…

「Progressbar」「Dialog」「Tooltip」「Menu」 「Extra」 / 公式「Widgets」以外の「jQuery UI」スクリプト
Blogger Template Customize Universal / INDEX
Blogger テンプレート・カスタマイズ / 全般を解説
Scroll Top