Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released...

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by ollncasino
Could I hazard a guess that while heavy rain is a sign of global warming, a dry spell the year before will also be construed as evidence of global warming by the global warming lobby?

More extreme weather is expected from global warming, resulting in more (and mostly stronger) rain and more dry spells.

Melting ice, global warming, freezing ice, global warming, heavy rain, global warming.

Dry spell, global warming?

If it's not at the same time in the same place, yes, it can be a result of global warming.

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.

Daily Mail

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Apologies if this has already been covered, but the reason why, as David Rose says "until today, it has not been reported" is because until David Rose made it up, there was nothing to report.

metofficenews.wordpress.com...

Not true. See the response by the Met Office to David Rose's questions below from your own link

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,

Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

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.

MetOfficeNews

It would appear that the David Rose has indeed been using data that he and the Met Office agree is genuine.

David Rose asserts that the data shows zero global warming since 1996, while the Met Office calculates 0.05 of a degree's global warming over the same period.

The Met Office in fact has confirmed the underlying data, although I have no link to the exact data David Rose and the Met Office are both using, although it would appear to be that of the Met Office buried somewhere in here

Climate scientist loses faith in the IPCC A few years ago, I was branded as a ‘heretic‘ for losing faith in the IPCC. Now another climate scientist has publicly stated that he is losing the faith. Who is this scientist? None other than Kevin Trenberth, in an interview with theage. Excerpts: I think it will be less successful than the last assessment, and I think it will be blander – I’m disappointed in what I’ve seen so far. But Professor Trenberth believes too many researchers and too much ”second tier” science are diluting the report’s quality, and that science has jumped far ahead of the lumbering process. ”There are more people, it’s more diffuse, it’s harder to gain a consensus – quite frankly I find the whole process very depressing,” he said. ”The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus, and updates every six years are just too slow. After the fifth assessment, we should push on with a different format.” ”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said. Wow. Could it be that my faith in the IPCC process will start to increase? Mine seems to be inversely proportional to Trenberth’s. U.S. politics and the greenhouse

Originally posted by kdog1982
Here is the lady in question,Judith Curry and her blog.

She may be right in a sense of how other scientists portray the data and the hype of global warming,but in my neck of the woods,I have seen change,hopefully just a temporary cycle.

judithcurry.com...-10180

Climate scientist loses faith in the IPCC A few years ago, I was branded as a ‘heretic‘ for losing faith in the IPCC. Now another climate scientist has publicly stated that he is losing the faith. Who is this scientist? None other than Kevin Trenberth, in an interview with theage. Excerpts: I think it will be less successful than the last assessment, and I think it will be blander – I’m disappointed in what I’ve seen so far. But Professor Trenberth believes too many researchers and too much ”second tier” science are diluting the report’s quality, and that science has jumped far ahead of the lumbering process. ”There are more people, it’s more diffuse, it’s harder to gain a consensus – quite frankly I find the whole process very depressing,” he said. ”The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus, and updates every six years are just too slow. After the fifth assessment, we should push on with a different format.” ”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said. Wow. Could it be that my faith in the IPCC process will start to increase? Mine seems to be inversely proportional to Trenberth’s. U.S. politics and the greenhouse

Curry thinks, incorrectly, that since other people are unsatisfied with the process, this is evidence for some grand conspiracy to make everything up when in truth there is no substantial human effect on climate and won't ever be, contrary to vast scientific evidence.

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by onedering
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Global warming is very real. Stop listening to the propaganda of the oil companies and the Us government. One and the same entity..

It was the UK MET office(The most pro AGW organisation on the planet) that released this info , you dork, lol

Why are the people Pro-polluting the planet such nasty bullies who quickly resort to name calling and defamation? Can you answer that one for me? WTF is up with that?

and Pro AGW people dont do any of those things? oh ok my bad. Its sad that some people (like yourself) think that the whole carbon trading scheme proposed to counter supposed AGW is about cleaning up pollution.

edit on 14-10-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

Summer 2012 in the Arctic has been warmer than usual and NASA’s analysis, reported in the earlier article, was confirmed by the NSDIC as well as meteorological agencies in Japan, Norway and Denmark. The extent of Arctic sea ice, measured at the end of August, at 1.58 million square miles, was 30000 square miles less than the previous low set in 2007 and the lowest since NASA records began in 1979. Read more: www.digitaljournal.com...

Originally posted by BlindBastards
It still astounds me that people believe in the man made global warming myth. It simply is not true. It’s just a tax grab, that’s it. If it’s all true, then why do those purporting it fly all over the world constantly, live in giant mansions and drive big gas guzzling cars?

It stands to reason that whoever is behind it is probably some sort of psychopathic narcissist with no respect for anything or anyone and only has their own selfish interests as a motive. Let's hope they are stopped soon and their evil deeds put to an end.