Twenty years of pausing global temperatures since 1998 are casting increasing doubt on the suggestion that human-produced carbon dioxide is causing a climate emergency and leading to runaway heating. Such doubt, of course, kicks away any justification for installing a Net Zero regime that is set to cause massive societal and economic dislocation. Needless to say, these concerns are nowhere to be seen in the end of year reporting of temperature trends that highlight increasingly improbable rises partly based on non-climate corruptions such as from nearby airport runways. All of this cherry-picking is taken from surface datasets that have removed a 1998-2012 standstill using retrospective upward adjustments.
In a recently published paper, Nicola Scafetta, a climate research scientist at the University of Naples, noted that the Met Office HadCRUT global dataset recorded warming of 0.03°C per decade during the hiatus years of 2000-2014. As Daily Sceptic has reported, there have been two retrospective adjustments of HadCRUT since then. In 2013, Scafetta noted that HadCRUT version 4 increased the warming to 0.08°C per decade. HadCRUT5 further adjusted the 2000-14 figure to supply warming of 0.14°C per decade, using, notes the science blog No Tricks Zone (NTZ), “the computer model-infilling method”.
Within the last decade, continues NTZ, the 2000-14 temperature trend has been changed from a pause to strong warming. “After all, when the data don’t fit the narrative, it is time to change the data,” concludes NTZ. All global surface datasets use similar measurements, and all have made recent upward adjustments to their global heating calculations.
Needless to say, the BBC led from the front in the battle to weaponise the 2022 results from the surface databases. It reported the view of scientists from the EU weather service Copernicus that last year, “saw a pattern of global warming that has become the new normal”. Global temperatures were said to be approximately 0.3°C higher last year than the 1991-2020 reference period. According to Samantha Burgess, a Copernicus deputy director, the global temperature will rise another 0.4°C within the decade under a “simple linear extrapolation”.
Of course it depends what temperature database you are extrapolating from. So far as the surface measurements are concerned, Scafetta is unimpressed. In general, the surface temperature records, and the homogenisation algorithms used to adjust them, present several problems that may have exaggerated the warming. In his considered view, the integrity of the records and, therefore, the ability to correctly determine the global warming trends over the last 120 years, “should be questioned”.
Satellite measurements are used extensively in both meteorology and climatology, and an accurate record of global temperatures is available going back to 1979. These measurements avoid most of the corruptions and inaccuracies of surface measurements. But they are largely ignored. Last year, Google AdSense ‘demonetised’ a web page detailing the latest monthly figures on the grounds of “unreliable and harmful claims”. As I have regularly reported, global warming reported by satellites is considerably less than that shown by the popular surface figures. According to the satellite record, since 1979, the planet has warmed about 0.6°C with most of the warming occurring before 1998. Since then, the planet has warmed little more than 0.1°C. As can be seen in the latest graph below, the only significant warming this century was around the middle of the last decade, and it was caused by a particularly powerful natural El Nino oscillation. The early century pause, absent now from the adjusted surface datasets, is clearly shown, as is the latest 100 month and counting plateau.
In a recent essay published in Watt Up With That? titled “Good 2022 climate news that the MSM didn’t tell you“, the science writer Javier Vinos noted that global warming is slowing down. The 15-year rate to the late 1990s was very high, reaching 0.35°C per decade. The average over the entire period of satellite records is 0.13°C per decade, but the long-term trend has fallen from 1.6°C per century to 1°C per century. Vinos notes that the long-term trend has been achieved at a time when CO2 emissions continue to rise.
Of course, the temperature wars are part of the battle to persuade populations to sign up to the command-and-control Net Zero project. Linking higher temperatures to increased CO2 levels, and suggesting it is all due to the 4% human contribution of all CO2 entering the atmosphere, has been an easy green scare to sell. But the political tactic relies on temperatures continue to play ball. It is becoming obvious that global warming ran out of steam some time ago. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and has warming properties, but the historical and paleoclimatic record does not provide any conclusive evidence that the gas is the main regulator of temperature in the atmosphere. Other, often little understood influences seem to play a much more important role. So far as the gas is concerned, there is evidence that its warming effect is logarithmic, and this warming falls dramatically when it rises above certain atmospheric levels. In fact, this proposition provides a more convincing and logical explanation for most climate observations going back 600 million years.
The idea that humans cause all or most changes in the climate by burning fossil fuel is an unproven science hypothesis. There is not a single credible science paper that proves it. The Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer recently noted that if there was one, there would be endless citation of the papers demonstrating this proof. Instead, “there is obfuscation and deafening silence”, he said.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Stop Press: Chris was invited onto Richard Tice’s Talk TV show last Sunday and they discussed a number of issues arising from recent Daily Sceptic articles. These included the Bangladesh and Pakistan floods and the corrupted surface temperature datasets. Of particular interest was the curious case of the highly-prized 40.3°C record set for the U.K. last July 19th and the fact it lasted for only 60 seconds half way down the runway at RAF Coningsby.
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.
Has anyone noticed how people who claim to be worried about climate change never seem to be heartened or happy by any evidence that global warming might not be as bad as they thought?
It’s the opposite, the seem to get angry and disappointed.
Of course, they’re having their belief system challenged and not being proper scientists they cannot respond logically.
Because it’s not science, it’s a cult.
Have you actually managed to get them to look at/listen to the evidence though? I find that trying to discuss AGW with believers (and it’s the same with covid lovers) usually results in an unpleasant personal attack – both seem to be subjects that bypass a logical, adult and interesting exchange of views, in favour of red faced cries of ‘so you’re a denier then?!’ I find it so depressing I avoid those sort of conversations except with like minded folk, coward that I am – but life’s just too short.
I have managed to have the odd sensible conversation.
Where it ends up is them not believing the evidence I put forward. In other words, they don’t believe the good news.
It’s fair enough. None of us really scrutinise or fully understand the data we are given. We basically trust our sources. If the DS publishes an article saying no global warming in the last 20 years, I might read through the rationale, but I don’t really. have any real basis for challenging it, or knowing whether it’s right or not.
We are each in our belief systems. I don’t believe we’re facing a catastrophe, they think we’re doomed unless we do some crazy drastic stuff.
It’s strange because if you were sick and a doctor told you you needed an operation and then after several months – it’s the NHS remember, it takes many months to get an operation – when you’re due to have your operation and they do some pre-op tests and the doctor suddenly tells you: good news, it turns out you’re not as bad as we thought and you don’t need the operation, you’d be pretty happy. You might want to get a second opinion, but you wouldn’t get angry and defensive about the new diagnosis.
Unless you’re a hypochondriac. Maybe that’s what climate freaks are, like hypochondriacs.
You may not but others can and do. All you need is to be able to read a graph.
How do you know the data in the graph is correct?
How do you know that is all the data?
How do you know that the graph tells the full story?
You think the climate freaks don’t have graphs and don’t know how to read graphs (to put it in your simplistic terms)?
Understanding some things in depth requires knowledge and expertise.
I take the trouble to understand the arguments presented and I verify them against my own personal observations and experience where possible. But that doesn’t always give me certainty. Rarely, in fact.
Their ‘belief’ is non-evidence based and depends on unfalsifiable claims… Man is destroying the Planet, future generations will suffer, for example.
Where there is no evidence to support a hypothesis, there can be none to refute it.
That is why ‘science’ used to support ideology and in politics is all about abstractions, which are impossible to challenge as there is no substance – it is like trying to fight with air molecules.
If a person claims there is a teapot on Mars, then it is up to them to prove it or at least to provide evidence for that. It is not up to anyone else to disprove there is a teapot on that planet. This is basically what has been happening in the global warming/ climate change issue now for years. But if something cannot be falsified, it isn’t science, and if everything that happens is due to your theory then you are not indulging in science. Most people who come in from work and stick on their 6 O’clock News every night to hear another and another and another global warming story accompanied by images of a typhoon sweeping cars down the street would be amazed to find out that in the real world there is no increase in the frequency or intensity, of any type of weather event anywhere in the world. What we do know however is that there are more people and buildings in the way of weather events that have always occurred. Until people get some basic understanding of the politics involved in this issue, they are forever going to be easily manipulated and their prosperity and freedoms will continue to be removed ——to “save the planet”
I liken this type of response from global warming alarmists to someone who is told by a doctor that they are likely to have cancer. Obviously cancer is bad news, as is the claim that the earth may warm by 5 degrees or more, and the patient is rightly worried. If a second doctor then says that he’s taken a closer look at the data and/or undertaken more tests and it turns out that the tumor is benign, and there is nothing to worry about, every sane person would welcome this as excellent news. Only an idiot would get upset and say “this can’t be true, I must have cancer” or call the second doctor a liar or charlatan. Therefore it genuinely puzzles me why people who quite rightly care about the future of the planet/humanity refuse to accept the good news and insist that things have to be bad.
Note also how they happily take holidays to sunny, warm places and.or go skiing in plenty of snow.
“This just in!”…apologies for leaving an off-territory Mogwai dump here but Dr Aseem Malhotra just dropped a massive truth bomb on the BBC. The segment starts off talking about statins but at around 3mins 20secs he goes off on one talking about the gene therapies and excess deaths. You can tell the BBC woman is having voices in her ear urging her to shut him down and get back to the safe topic of statins! lol Very good and top marks to Dr Malhotra for getting the truth out on the Beeb of all places.
https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra
Did they really think they were going to get him on to talk about Statins and he wouldn’t mention the Jim Jones Juice? They are even more stupid than I thought.
Fabulous interview, not just for the mRNA truth bomb, but also the processed foods warning!!
Many Americans have seen their climate warm considerably in the last couple of years, but that’s because they’ve moved to Florida. people like it warm!
They like lower taxes and non-wokery better.
Many Florida immigrants are ex California – it’s warm there.
They like DeSantis better..(don’t tell anyone,we are Democrats)
A few weeks ago Californians were complaining about drought, now its raining and they are still complaining. No suiting some people.
Any one who has lived the city life and then moves to the countryside is fully aware of the urban heat Island effect. I moved a few miles from my town to a more isolated setting in a village, even there the difference in temperature is noticeable. For anyone to therefore quote surface temperatures as we rapidly grow towns over the years is playing fast and loose.
I lived in central London and my office was in a North London suburb.
In Winter, a couple degrees above freezing and no frost or snow when I left home, freezing and frost or an inch of snow when I got to the office.
The urban heat island effect in central London is around 3 degrees C, with temperatures similar to the Channel Islands. It’s very noticeable in winter.
Averaging temperature readings from different locations is still meaningless nonsense and Nonsense value moved in direction! is not news.
‘… the Met Office HadCRUT global dataset recorded warming of 0.03°C per decade during the hiatus years of 2000-2014.’
That’s interesting because most – nearly all – surface temperature measuring instruments are not accurate to more than one tenth of a degree, many accurate to half a degree.
So HadCRUD produces output numbers to a far greater accuracy than the input data. Clever. So global warming is Manmade in the bowels of HadCRUT Central computer algorithms.
And since the global near surface temperature record is an average, has a margin of error of at least +/-1C therefore, so warming of 0.03C is in effect zero.
And… in the late 90s one of the ‘Climate Cabal’ said, if the current ‘pause’ lasts more than 15 years, then they would have to reconsider their claims. Well…?
Accuracy of temperature measurement is a complex issue, and the accuracy does not necessarily stay the same across a range of values. It might be (say) +/- 0.2 °C at 0 °C, but less accurate at (say) 30 °C. But, as you say, tiny changes like 0.03 are virtually meaningless.
I think it’s more to do with the embarrassment, and realisation of being took for a fool!…all those years teaching it and believing it and preaching it only to find you where wrong! that’s a lot for any ego to swallow,and,… you where on the majority side? How could this be?
“It’s not true, fingers back in ears, eyes covered, whistle!”
I can’t find anywhere the justification for increasing the temperatures in HADCRUT – they must have offered some explanation for this, especially as the adjustments are all one way.
WHY WHY WHY use a chart 1979-2022, a ridiculously brief period, showing a period of rising temperatures and COMPLETELY DESTROY the points you are trying to make?? A lot of people just skim read but they DO look at pictures/graphics and you reinforce their warmist thinking.
Some years ago a lead author at the IPCC said” In about 10 years time we are going to have to concede that there must be something seriously wrong with our models, as a 20 year pause in warming does not occur in a single one of them”———–Time has passed by and that 20 year period has been reached and now passed, with very little warming of any significance despite more and more CO2 going into the atmosphere. So the theory of human caused global warming is falsified by ——The Evidence.— Some of us have seen for years that the whole climate change charade stinks. It is eco socialism masquerading as science, where anyone who dares question any aspect of it is told “So you think you know more than the scientists.”? But science is NOT a dictatorship, and the whole idea in science is to question everything, especially when the facts do not fit the theory. Everything we hear about this issue is a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency for which no evidence exists. When we are told “Listen to the scientists”, what that really means is “Listen to the modellers”, but models are NOT science, and they are NOT evidence of anything. All of the models, sometimes costing millions have been way off the mark, projecting way more warming than has actually occurred, yet that does not seem to matter and all that we get is the next modelling fantasy rolled out as if it represented some kind of ultimate truth rather than un-validated speculation in models full of assumptions. The general public though, busy with work and family life see endless storms, floods and extreme weather on their TV screens beamed from all corners of the globe, with wheeled out experts insisting that this is all due to “global warming” and it is virtually impossible to shift that notion from their heads. Propaganda is such a powerful tool. I have on occasion noticed that if you say to someone eg “Polar Bear numbers are increasing”, they look at you like you are from Mars. So entrenched is the idea that Polar Bears are in big trouble that the person becomes like a rabbit in the headlights. So why then would people say there was dangerous climate change if there isn’t? ———-That is the crucial question, and for the answer you must turn to POLITICS. Because all of this climate change dogma emanates from the UN IPCC. A Political body, not a scientific one, whose remit is to look for everything that would seem to indicate that humans affect the climate while ignoring everything that doesn’t indicate that.
The Net Zero lunacy isn’t about the climate. That’s just the means by which the Globalists have brainwashed the very comfortable western sheeple, particularly young people, to support their objectives
It’s about control; gradually equalising global living standards by levelling down the successful west and transferring vast sums of money to the least successful countries/regions: UN Agenda 2030.
There is no genuine evidence that human-generated CO2 is a problem: there IS evidence that environmental degradation and and unsustainable population explosion a is having a negative effect in some countries ie in Pakistan where the impact of the recent flooding was made worse because of their vastly expanded and poor population and de-forestation.
But, strictly speaking, that is not OUR fault or OUR problem and remedying it will not happen by depriving British citizens of gas central heating.
I notice the New Scientist has “paused” it’s climate doom mongering!!
What is most important is free open debate about climate change without one side being censored or demonitized.
True science is based upon free speech, and any and all ideas and theories being open to scrutiny and criticism.
If anyone says ‘the science is settled’ you know they are talking about ideology and not science.