Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it
- 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
As regular reader(s) know I am interested in the ‘global warming‘ issue and many would undoubtedly call me a ‘denalist‘. The reality is that all I am asking is that we do a cost/benefit analysis before we commit ourselves to a return to the stone age. This article provides some interesting evidence that we might have already over committed to our return to the stone age, at least if CO2 from human activity is the cause. The article does have a strong ‘denalist’ tone, but I think it brings up lots of important points that are generally totally ignored and where I would like the debate to be. I am an avid follower of the blog “Do The Math” where the author (a physicist) has looked very closely at our current (unsustainable) use of fossil fuels. What he has to say is incredibly more important to our society and one that, perhaps ironic to me, calls for much of the same sort of changes in behavior as the global warming hysterics do, but for reasons that are fundamentally based on real, measurable effects rather than on computer models that even the producers acknowledge are imperfect.
This final bit of the article really highlights my thoughts (note that this is a UK-based web site):
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.
