New Evidence Shows Global Warming has Slowed Dramatically Over Last 20 Years

In a major re-evaluation of data from weather balloons rising through the troposphere, scientists have confirmed that temperatures have mostly paused since around 1998.

5 min read

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.

Comments

This week across the site:

Email me alerts for this discussion
Notify of

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.

87 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
QuizzicalMe
QuizzicalMe
4 years ago

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?

Think Harder
Think Harder
4 years ago

Maybe it’s all the geo-engineering? They’ve saved us! Oh dear the soil is full of AlO2.
Just wondering.

David Walker
David Walker
4 years ago

“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!

pottage13
pottage13
4 years ago

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.

imp66
imp66
4 years ago

Government agencies manipulating data to suit The Narrative? Now where have I seen that before?

MikeHaseler
MikeHaseler
4 years ago

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.

godders
godders
4 years ago

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

David Beaton
David Beaton
4 years ago

Looking forward to the Headline News on the BBC and in the Guardian!

Ha Johnson been told yet?

David Beaton
David Beaton
4 years ago

Shhhh !!! Don’t tell Gore the ‘inconvenient truth’ ..he has been ‘dining out’ on the ‘Crisis’ for over 20 years!

PatrickF
PatrickF
4 years ago

That’s evidence, not science.

RedhotScot
RedhotScot
4 years ago
Reply to  PatrickF

That’s the title.

PatrickF
PatrickF
4 years ago
Reply to  RedhotScot

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.’

huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
4 years ago

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.

Alex B
Alex B
4 years ago

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… Read more »

wokeman
wokeman
4 years ago
Reply to  Alex B

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.

vivaldi
vivaldi
4 years ago
Reply to  Alex B

Ergo….what would explain the warmth of the early medieval period….those global warming/heating ‘settled scientists’ can never explain that away!

Quartzite shift
Quartzite shift
4 years ago

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.

peyrole
peyrole
4 years ago

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… Read more »

John Dee
John Dee
4 years ago

Cue photo of climate loons with fingers in ears, chanting ‘Nah, nah, nah – can’t hear you!’

RedhotScot
RedhotScot
4 years ago
Reply to  John Dee

Ideal opportunity the kick them in the nads.

Smelly Melly
Smelly Melly
4 years ago

“How dare you” say such things. St Greta (she who can see CO2) will disagree and you cannot go against one of Gods chosen.

RedhotScot
RedhotScot
4 years ago
Reply to  Smelly Melly

CC02?

We must have all missed something.

JeremyP99
JeremyP99
4 years ago

Planet’s been cooling for 7k years. Be grateful for any remaining warm periods before the next full Ica Age, which is already overdue…

GISP-last-10000-years.png
RedhotScot
RedhotScot
4 years ago
Reply to  JeremyP99

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.

A passerby
A passerby
4 years ago

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!

Oxford Blues
Oxford Blues
4 years ago

Source not verified.

70FF40AE-8EA3-4D18-93A2-F665B3605CD3.jpeg
Dodgy Geezer
Dodgy Geezer
4 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….

ImpObs
ImpObs
4 years ago
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer

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.

Dodgy Geezer
Dodgy Geezer
4 years ago
Reply to  ImpObs

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.

Just Passing Through
Just Passing Through
4 years ago

…

UN-Predicts-Disaster-718x720.png
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
4 years ago

Oh that’s brilliant.

RedhotScot
RedhotScot
4 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

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.

Oxford Blues
Oxford Blues
4 years ago

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?

John Dee
John Dee
4 years ago
Reply to  Oxford Blues

Perhaps he should be renamed Bear With Me?

RedhotScot
RedhotScot
4 years ago
Reply to  John Dee

Bearly credible…….

NeensBeens
NeensBeens
4 years ago

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.

JeremyP99
JeremyP99
4 years ago

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:

Over a 20-year period the estimated change in deaths associated with warm or cold temperature was a net decrease of 555,094, an average of 27,755 deaths per year (Table 1). A decrease in deaths from outcomes associated with cold temperature greatly outnumbers deaths associated with warm temperature.”

90% of the reduced deaths were attributed… Read more »

6a010536b58035970c0120a75431d3970b.png
RedhotScot
RedhotScot
4 years ago
Reply to  JeremyP99

The left like killing people. Made a habit of it over the years.

imp66
imp66
4 years ago
Reply to  RedhotScot

With opinions like that you should be taken out and shot!! Oh, hang on a sec….

Brett_McS
Brett_McS
4 years ago

Don’t disturb Dr Micheal E Mann and his mates. They are happy playing with their models.

Gregoryno6
Gregoryno6
4 years ago
Reply to  Brett_McS

It’s not just their models that they’re playing with.

Lockdown Sceptic
Lockdown Sceptic
4 years ago

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

NeilofWatford
NeilofWatford
4 years ago

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?

John Dee
John Dee
4 years ago
Reply to  NeilofWatford

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.

Eldorado
Eldorado
4 years ago

The 300 hPa temperature is affected by both stratospheric and surface warming. A much better measure would be the 1000-850 hPa thickness.

Cecil B
Cecil B
4 years ago

Caption Competition

‘Greta flies off on her summer holidays’

prick
prick
4 years ago
Reply to  Cecil B

……to join the other two shits on their dung heap of the vanities.

chris-ds
chris-ds
4 years ago

an international group of leading scientists.

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.

RedhotScot
RedhotScot
4 years ago
Reply to  chris-ds

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.

Thank you for reading. Please help us keep the Daily Sceptic going by becoming a donor.