Further scientific evidence that global warming starting to run out of steam over two decades ago has been presented by an international group of leading scientists. In a major re-evaluation of data from meteorology balloons rising through the troposphere, the scientists confirmed that temperatures have mostly paused since around 1998. The discovery can only add to pressure to re-open the so-called ‘settled science’ debate around global warming and the central part it plays in the 30-year rush towards Net Zero.
Readings throughout the troposphere, Earth’s lower atmosphere that extends in parts up to 15 km altitude, have been available for many years. The researchers were able to use measuring metadata to improve the consistency of records obtained from almost 700 global locations, recording twice a day since 1978, at 16 pressure levels. The slowdown since 1998 observed in the balloon data is confirmed by accurate satellite data, which also shows a current pause of about 91 months. An earlier pause from 1998 to 2012 has been largely wiped from all the major surface temperature datasets.
The two graphs show the results from the study for the northern hemisphere and the tropics at a height of about 11 km. Most of the warming over the last 40 years occurred up to the late 1990s. The tropics have warmed less than the north, and in fact at 11 km it is difficult to discern any significant warming in the tropics at all.
The temperature variations recorded in the lower troposphere are generally reflected at higher altitudes, notes Emeritus Professor Ole Humlum in his recent “State of the Climate” report. At higher altitudes, near the tropopause, the temperature patterns seen lower down can still be recognised, “but for the duration of the record (since 1979) there has been no clear trend towards higher or lower temperatures”, said Humlum.
There is little scientific dispute that warming and cooling in the troposphere reflects that found at the surface. Most atmospheric gas is contained in this area, including the so-called greenhouse gases such as water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane. Just before COP26 last year, the World Economic Forum published scientific research that claimed around 80% of the increase in the temperature of the troposphere since 2000 was due to warming caused by humans. This was said to show that the effects of fossil fuels and human activity “are infiltrating all our surroundings, even those high above our heads”.
So why is there so little current warming being recorded by satellites and meteorological balloons in the troposphere, yet for the major surface datasets it is onwards and upwards, business as usual? None more so than at the U.K. Met Office, where the inconvenient 1998-2012 pause was finally removed in 2020 by a 14% temperature uplift. Here is the change from HadCRUT4 to HadCRUT5.
In July 2013, the Met Office published a paper about the pause, although its main argument that the heat had disappeared into the ocean does not seem to have stood the test of time. In 2013, the move from HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4 introduced the first temperature boost. Along with the 2020 uplift, the extra heating is thought to amount to as much as 30%. In addition, some earlier records were moved downwards, and this had the effect of accentuating the recent rise. Similar adjustments have been made to other major datasets, including those run by NASA and the U.S. weather service, NOAA. Professor Humlum looked at the adjustments to the NASA GISS dataset and found that “half of the apparent global temperature increase from January 1910 to January 2000 is due to administrative adjustments to the original data since May 2008”.
The adjustments matter, of course, because they provide covering fire for every journalist, activist and politician looking to promote global warming, without necessarily having full mastery of the scientific brief. Using the figures from its twice-adjusted HadCRUT database, the Met Office felt able recently to make an absurd 50-50 prediction that temperatures would leap by almost half a degree centigrade to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels in one year before 2025. As expected, the message was faithfully reported by journalists across mainstream media, seemingly keen to support the political agenda behind Net Zero.
Tablets-of-stone messaging handed down by operations like the Met Office mean that the BBC’s Climate Editor and green activist-in-residence Justin Rowlatt can faithfully report the Scottish First Minister’s recent comments to the U.S. Brookings Institute, without reference to the journalist’s classic five Ws. “As things stand, the world is on course to exceed both 1.5°C of global warming and the 2°C threshold – and scientific consensus is overwhelming that this will be catastrophic,” claimed Nicola Sturgeon.
Who says the world is on course for 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming? What scientific consensus? When will the world exceed 1.5°C and 2°C? Where is the scientific basis for these thresholds? Why will a few tenths of a degree centigrade warming be catastrophic?
It was always held by old-school journalists that it was never libellous to ask a question. Even if the maxim wasn’t entirely true, it would be a shame if the question, as a tool in the journalist’s armoury, disappeared altogether.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor
Postscript: The central claim of this article – that global warming has slowed significantly over the past 20 years – has been criticised in a fact check by USA Today and a website called Climate Feedback, drawing on data provided by NASA.
Chris Morrison has responded to these criticisms here and here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
And even if the (politically motivated) IPCC’s figures had been right, there still wasn’t a sound business case for net zero carbon and all the other nonsense.
PS science is never settled. I wonder what would have happened to Einstein and his flexible time if it had been discovered today?
And all journalists should routinely ask the five Ws. Why do they seem not to? Financial considerations?
Funnily enough, Einstein did face a fair amount of criticism in his day.
Yes, science was political then as now. I understand that British scientists were particularly keen to believe in the Piltdown fraud.
Didn’t Piltdown Man transgender to Piltdown Woman?
How dare you be so binary!
Any relation to Sutton Hoo Undecided?
He was a bit of a scruffbag.
The adjustments do matter, and maybe, just maybe, there was a good reason for them. It’s necessary to understand and evaluate why they were made before dismissing them.
Very true, all adjustments must be documented, with reasons why and also peer reviewed.
the original data must also remain for reference.
if the justifications for adjustment does not mean consensus then it should be removed.
Exactly so.
Peer review is much of the problem.
Afaik, honest, non-activist scientists are increasingly placing their work in the public domain for all to see and review, and are willing to make corrections where it’s clearly necessary. ‘Peer’ review has passed its sell-by date.
But if you have measured data, you just don’t adjust it! You provide error bars to show the uncertainty. The problem is, the GW activists in these pseudo-scientific orgs cannot (will not?) understand that there is uncertainty, and politicians cannot deal with uncertainty either, as they then cannot create ‘something must be done’ policies.
You can only apply “error bars” if you know what the error range is.
an example is of satellite data from 1980. The raw data is raw data, it might include the result of a temp sensor reading of a specific location at a certain time and date, the data won’t contain the temperature but what ever the sensor detected, that data is then used with other data like altitude of the satellite, location, day or night, cloud cover etc etc & then interpreted via calculations to provide a temperature reading.
it might be found from other systems that the satellite location or altitude can be derived more accurately so instead of a location to within 50km’s we can now calculate to within 20km’s. This is newly available info not available to the scientists of the time. Now the calculations of the raw data can be done again with greater precision.
another example is looking at the calibration of the measuring system.
it might be discovered that the calibration was not nuanced enough and new data on those old instruments means we can now do better calculations.
it’s not unusual to do this kind of thing and is fine if fully documented, reviewed and the original data and interpretation is retained.
Problems arise when people go against scientific principles and deliberately distort the record for nefarious purposes and pass that in as the truth.
scientific principles must be upheld, that’s what gives science credibility, reliability and trust.
as a scientist I’m more concerned with the loss of trust these people are playing with for their short term gain.
If you have no idea what the error range is, how can any adjustment be justified other than for interest and seeing impact of dialling parameters up and down?
Many adjustments were made when it was decided* historic data wasn’t accurate and assumptions were made.
*Decided, not discovered. The inaccuracies were known for generations, it just seemed an opportune moment to do some fiddling with numbers when Global Warming became de rigueur and, politically and financially attractive.
The “science” of the past (and much of the present) brandished by alarmist’s is full of guesswork, which is why they hate balloon and satellite data. It’s accurate, complete, largely agrees with each other, and is historically fairly extensive.
I find it hard to believe the Met Office would fiddle the temperature the record without a good reason. If they did, then there should be a big focus on exactly that as it would be a massive tale of corruption.
At present, these articles assume the adjustments are not warranted yet never do the slightest inquiry into them. That’s not scepticism, it’s putting your fingers in your ears and whistling.
For me, I’m too tired from digging into misrepresented medical data to yet do the same on temperature data. And the latter issue ought to be much more clear cut.
Amazing how all the adjustments cool the past temperatures because we all know meteorologists back then weren’t smart enough to read a thermometer accurately.
I agree it looks bad but it’s worth having at least a small trial before calling for the executioner.
No the executioner should have swung the axe after climategate when these so called scientists were exposed as activists with red pens. Don’t you think it’s rather odd obsessing about warming during a deepening ice age (Quaternary) for a species evolved in the tropics? This is regurgitated/vomited Malthus with far less intellect.
The whole world has reached a critical mass of insanity. Now we know why there aren’t any aliens … at least biological ones.
“I find it hard to believe the Met Office would fiddle the temperature the record without a good reason.”
They have a good reason, it’s called politics.
No one is going to query an answer they like
Guesswork is right. Apart from satellite measurements, the whole of the African continent is a measurement black-hole, yet mysteriously is ‘shown’ to be heating up more than many other regions.
Tony Heller (pka: Steve Goddard) has been documenting these ‘adjustments’ for years, and hasn’t seen any rational reason published for them. It’s all about the political GW narrative, and as noted in the article, ‘cooling the past & warming the present’ feeds that narrative.
They don’t just provide cover for journalists, activists and politicians ….. unless you consider that Prince Charles meets one of those descriptions.
Prince Charles – out in Canada – is having discussions with Trudeau about “Sustainable finance in combating climate change and building a Net Zero economy.”
He’s not a journalist. He’s not a politician. He has no qualifications in Climatology or Finance. I guess therefore that he must be classed as “An Activist” ….. and that disqualifies him from becoming King.
I’d love to be fly on the wall when those two ****s get together
I can think of a better name for him…
Cnut?
A right royal cnut!
Problem with Charlie is that he’s surrounded himself with sycophants and and yes men, and he’s now puffed up with his own importance.
Very true. There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of intellect among our so called elite, just arrogance and entitlement.
Chinless and brainless don’t mix well with privileged.
A king only if it’s bracketed by Fuc and Joke.
At first I thought the header picture was of a ‘genuine poster’ trying to get a signal for Russia Today which, as any fool knows, is The Voice of Truth.
Well, certainly much more truth than ever occurs on the godawful BBC.
It’s difficult to criticise RT when the BBC has gone full gov-gobshite (when it’s not being Guardian-lite).
I am sure they’ll be telling us very soon that the last two years saw the biggest “correction” and that it’s “thanks” to lockdown, and that we need to be permanently locked down to “continue the good work”.
Not anymore, they where excluded from the leader boards the moment they intended to go against the grain, any one associating with them will also be damned and find their funding drys up.
they will be nudged or cudgelled into compliance.
we desperately need independent scientists who receive money despite what they find or believe.
how many uk scientists are openly conservatives? Same question goes for any academics.
We have far too much ‘science’, that’s the problem.
And the dissenting science is just silenced.
But the whole thing has never been about science, it’s been about propaganda which the left used from day one. When 90% of the planet’s population doesn’t understand science, what’s the point of trying to convince them with it.
The GWPF have eventually twigged to this and are doing a reasonable PR job, but it’s far too late. We are now relying on the current Biden induced meteoric rise in energy prices to do the job for sceptics. Our government is, predictably, blaming it on Putin, another propaganda master stroke.
Caption Competition
‘Greta flies off on her summer holidays’
……to join the other two shits on their dung heap of the vanities.
The 300 hPa temperature is affected by both stratospheric and surface warming. A much better measure would be the 1000-850 hPa thickness.
It is good news, but to be honest as a child of the 50s I don’t need a scientist to tell me there’s no climate crisis.
The weather’s very much the same as it’s always been.
Nothing to see here, move along please and can we cancel the carbon zero madness now?
The weather does seem to have worsened the roads, since there are many more people super-glued to them than used to be the case.
Planet Strippers: Wind Turbines & Solar Panels Driving Insatiable Mineral Demand
https://stopthesethings.com/2022/05/18/planet-strippers-wind-turbines-solar-panels-driving-insatiable-mineral-demand/
stopthesethings
Stand for freedom with ourg Yellow Boards By The Road next events
Thursday 19th May 3pm to 5pm
Yellow Boards LONDON
Junction A4 West Cromwell Road/
A3220 Warwick Road
London W14 8PB
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Don’t disturb Dr Micheal E Mann and his mates. They are happy playing with their models.
It’s not just their models that they’re playing with.
Graph above. 1850 was the end of the LIA. What else would one expect but a temperature rise? The depths of the LIA was the coldest the UK had been in thousands of years. The climate crazies seem to wish it had stayed that cold.
Warm is good
Cold is bad.
The LIA caused utter devastation in Europe and many other parts of the world. Extreme weather has been proven to be far worse when the planet is cooling.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/extreme-weather-during-the-maunder-minimum/
https://notrickszone.com/2022/04/29/cold-kills-far-more-people-than-heat-does-also-in-england-and-wales-recent-ons-report-finds/
“Earlier this year the British Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported that also in England and Wales cold kills more people than heat. Over the past 30 years, the mean temperature for the region has increased by nearly 1°C compared to the prior decades. What affect has this had on mortality? The mildre temperatures are good news, it turns out.
According to the report:
90% of the reduced deaths were attributed to milder winter days. The other 10% were attributed to the warmer summer days.”
The left like killing people. Made a habit of it over the years.
With opinions like that you should be taken out and shot!! Oh, hang on a sec….
This will not please the death cult that is XR. Or other human hating groups. Fear porn and its addictive nature for some and its usefulness to control us for others is endemic. Unraveling the emotionally driven agendas and returning to a less exciting but a more pragmatic calmer engagement with REALITY is going to take some while.
The campaign is everywhere. On a recent flight to Iceland (a country I love and find fascinating due to its wild landscapes, untouched by humanity, which I selfishly and hypocritically explored using a hire car) I watched three episodes of Hostile Planet (2019) narrated by Bear Grylls. The first episode, on Mountains, was beautifully-filmed, and captures some incredible scenes. But at virtually every possible opportunity “climate change” was referred to as being the cause of various problems the creatures, or the environment in which they lived, were facing. On one hand warmer winters and earlier springs were blamed for snow leopards over-heating. But on the other we were told that “…winters become more severe and erratic” due to climate change. There were other similarly alarmist and crass pseudo science statements scattered throughout. Interestingly the second episode, on Oceans, equally spectacular, had barely a mention of climate change. Had a memo been sent to the script writers?
Perhaps he should be renamed Bear With Me?
Bearly credible…….
…
Oh that’s brilliant.
Since then, sea levels have risen between 1.5mm and 3mm per year, according to ‘the science’.
In other words, since 1989 SLR is a total of between 49.5mm and 99mm. That’s a lot on a gently sloping beach, and when I was at the coast a few weeks ago the beaches were no smaller at high tide than they were 30 years ago.
The main driver of Northern Hemisphere temperatures is a 60-80 year cycle of heating/cooling in the Atlantic, termed the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO).
This was bottoming out in its cool phase in the 1960/70s. It was climbing in the 80s/90s and peaked around 2005 (thus providing good copy for ‘global warming’).
It is now entering its downward phase – this has been going on for about 15 years now. In another 15 years it will be dropping quite steeply.
I do not know how the climate change activists will respond as the temperatures plummet. They will either claim that their activism has saved the world, or switch to the Ice-Age scare that was running for a short time in the 1970s….
There was a paper in Nature last week blaming the AMO slowing down on global warming, I din’t read it but youtube suggested some video about it, I only lasted 5 mins into it, it sounded like a big armwave encompassing all the ocean currents, including the gulf stream, then rolling out the UK/N. EU will freeze because of global warming trope.
The comments section was the biggest collection of bedwetters I’ve ever seen in one place.
Looks like we’re in for a double La Nina too, usually brings milder weather and less precip to UK, but the “big picture” for a La Nina is less clouds at the equator, letting more energy into the oceans, if you consider the global climate is a big heat engine, this does not bode well for the AGW trope.
Do not trust either Nature or Youtube to provide unbiased commentary on climate science.
As Popper pointed out, a key aspect of science is prediction and falsifiability. If your theories are right, you should be able to make correct predictions about what will happen under appropriate circumstances. My prediction is that global temperatures, measured using the UAH satellite feed (the only data set not ‘adjusted’) will show a significant drop over the years 2020-2050.
Source not verified.
New Evidence Shows Global Warming has Slowed Dramatically Over Last 20 Years
In a mid 1960‘s classroom somewhere in England.
Is it all hot air? Discuss. Sir! Is it caused by trapped wind? (Blackboard rubber launched by teacher flies towards boy) Sir! Does air pressure decrease when heated? (followed by piece of chalk). Fast forward to 2020‘s, everyone now fully masked, socially distanced and woke prepared, boy asks, does it have anything to do with an over population agenda being pushed by NGO’s? Stunned into silence. Some questions should never be asked!
Planet’s been cooling for 7k years. Be grateful for any remaining warm periods before the next full Ica Age, which is already overdue…
Yes, but a new ice age will take several thousand years to build up mile thick ice over the northern hemisphere. Let’s not cause another panic.
“How dare you” say such things. St Greta (she who can see CO2) will disagree and you cannot go against one of Gods chosen.
CC02?
We must have all missed something.
Cue photo of climate loons with fingers in ears, chanting ‘Nah, nah, nah – can’t hear you!’
Ideal opportunity the kick them in the nads.
There is some logic in expecting some smallish increase in average surface temperatures when atmospheric temperatures remain constant. Firstly radiation physics tells us that the wavelengths CO2 molecules vibrate and potentially ‘reflect’ energy are almost full. So any increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is unlikely to increase reflected energy to the surface. hardly any ‘climatologists’ ( ie computer modellers) have the remotest knowledge of this physics.
So what can cause increases in average temperatures on the surface? Well its man made, and absolutely nothing to do with a trace gas.
Average temps can and do increase because the minimum temps are slightly higher, not maximums. We have an outbreak of mildness, which of course produces less ‘extreme weather’ not more which is just a false lie perpetuated by frustrated ‘heaters’ and magnified throughout the MSM. The cause of this increase in minimum temps is the urbanisation of mankind throughout the world creating hot spots of tarmac and concrete, 24/7 lifestyles, farming techniques, etc. Big cities never cool down , well except for some in Canada, Scandy and Russia.
The ‘heaters’ know this, which is why they close down long standing rural weather stations and concentrate readings in urban hot spots, especially near airports and motorways.
Its a con, a dreadful evil con, comparable but potentially more life and societal changing than covid. And a lot of the same ‘players’ are behind both.
man made warming is a crock. man made warming is a political gift. man made warming makes jobs, man made warming is a goldmine for the corporate blob and endless excuse. Paying scientists to adjust the stats, par for the course.
Natural warming is beneficial, CO2 is a life force gas, what is the perfect temperature it’s just average. The other thing to note, the life giving star, she’s gone quiet, naturally. All else is just chat and bent statistics done by liars.
Back in February 2010 Phil Jones who was head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia did an interview with Roger Harrabin. Jones was asked the following question:
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming (i.e. from 1995 – 2009).
Answer:
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Got to admit that yes, but only just really made me laugh at the time; followed by special pleading and hand waving.
For this interview Jones also compiled trends for periods from 1860, from his own CRU data in order to answer this question:
Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
Answer:
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances (sic) for each period:
Period Length Trend (Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 years 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 years 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 years 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 years 0.161 Yes
Takeaway: periods when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were significantly lower than today, saw identical warming trends.
Phil Jones is the pond life on a permanent sinecure at our expense. Don’t even bother, he refuses to debate with sensible ppl (deniers) these days. Since he’s retired he’s been replaced with ppl even more extreme in their ideology.
Ergo….what would explain the warmth of the early medieval period….those global warming/heating ‘settled scientists’ can never explain that away!
This global warming is a bit of a pfizzer – up, down, up, down… bloody hell, shake it all about and we’ve got the Hokey Kokey.
I think somebody is pulling my leg.
That’s evidence, not science.
That’s the title.
Hi Red, my post ‘That’s evidence, not science’ is not the title ‘New Evidence Shows Global Warming has Slowed Dramatically Over Last 20 Years.’
Shhhh !!! Don’t tell Gore the ‘inconvenient truth’ ..he has been ‘dining out’ on the ‘Crisis’ for over 20 years!
Looking forward to the Headline News on the BBC and in the Guardian!
Ha Johnson been told yet?
We are on the brink of a super grand solar minimum, according to one of the most respect experts in this field, with a reputation for being right 97 percent of the time
The result, according to UK-based Valentina Zharkova, will be a gradual drop in global temperatures over the next thirty years which could create more problems than the gentle warming most of us have enjoyed in our lifetimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xg6CKxOK1U
In the 1970s high levels of SO2 were emitted into the atmosphere leading to large scale increases in sunlight reflecting cloud. In the 1970s clean air acts started being passed to stop SO2 emissions.It does not take a genius to know the effect would be warming predominantly in the northern hemisphere.
Government agencies manipulating data to suit The Narrative? Now where have I seen that before?
Thank you, can we ask that the five “W’s” be a requirement for all future questions put to the “experts”- it has been obvious that temperatures stopped increasing some 20 years ago, it was obvious that the temperature rise was in the main driven by temperature recovery (natural process) as the planet recovered from the Little Ice Age – having recovered, it naturally slowed down to a point best described as zero increase. I can find no proven data regarding the 1.5 – 2 degree warming used by the IPCC and its acolytes, where it came from is a mystery, similar to that of 98% of scientists agree with Global Warming. A point to finish – CO2 is a critical element, without it plant based life ends below 180ppm, the planet managed to drop to a point where it could have tipped over 220ppm (it has been 6000+ppm in the past), we are trending towards 440+ppm, the planet is greener, crop yields are up with less surface given over to arable, desert expansion is coming up against a wall of green and in places receding – so yes we have a Green Agenda – more CO2, more life.
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
~ Prof. Chris Folland ~ (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research)
And quite right too!
I mean, why bother with the data from 150-year-old five quid thermometers recorded by silly old meteorologists when you’ve got data from brand new up-to-date ten million quid computer games – er, sorry – models operated by real super-intelligent “Climate Scientists” like Michael Mann?
You know it makes sense!
Maybe it’s all the geo-engineering? They’ve saved us! Oh dear the soil is full of AlO2.
Just wondering.
I wonder why this just-published article uses data that ends about two-and-a-half years ago (1/1/2018)? Anyone know where the more recent data might be found?