Met Office Report Confirms Global Warming Stopped 16 years ago

By DAVID ROSE | MAILONLINE | OCTOBER 15, 2012

The world stopped getting  warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last  week.

The figures, which have  triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of  1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global  temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as  the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that,  temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

global temperature changes
Research: The new figures mean that the  ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous  period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg  melting in Eastern Greenland

The new data, compiled  from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly  on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been  reported.

This stands in sharp  contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago,  which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then  means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the  first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists,  such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the  University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau,  saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw  conclusions.

Others disagreed. 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 cycle

s 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.

Professor Phil Jones, left, from the University of East Anglia, dismissed the  significance of the plateau. Professor Judith Curry, right, from Georgia Tech  university in America, disagreed, saying the computer models used to predict  future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Read Full Article →

Met Office: El Calentamiento Global terminó hace 15 años

Dos de las organizaciones científicas que sólo un par de años atrás dijeron que los seres humanos eran responsables por el calentamiento del planeta, el Met Office y la Universidad de East Anglia, ahora proporcionan datos contrastantes que muestran que el calentamiento del planeta terminó en 1997.

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
29 de enero 2012

El supuesto “consenso” sobre el calentamiento global causado por el hombre enfrenta un reto incómodo después de la publicación de datos de temperaturas que muestra que el planeta no se ha calentado durante los últimos 15 años. Las cifras sugieren que incluso podría ser el comienzo de una mini edad de hielo que competirá con el descenso de la temperatura de 70 años que dio paso a las heladas en el río Támesis en el siglo 17.

Con base en las lecturas de más de 30.000 estaciones de medición, la Met Office y la Unidad de Investigación Climática de la Universidad de East Anglia publicaron los datos la semana pasada sin hacer mucho ruido. Se confirma que la tendencia al alza en las temperaturas mundiales acabó en 1997.

Mientras tanto, científicos del clima dijeron ayer a The Mail on Sunday que, después de emitir niveles inusualmente altos de energía durante todo el siglo 20, el sol está ahora en dirección a un “gran mínimo” en su producción, amenazando veranos fríos, inviernos amargos y un acortamiento de la temporada para el cultivo de alimentos.

La radiación solar pasa a través de ciclos de 11 años, con un alto número de manchas solares visto en su mejor momento. Ahora estamos en lo que debería ser la cima de lo que los científicos llaman “Ciclo 24” – que es la razón por la tormenta solar de la semana pasada que dio lugar a observaciones de la aurora boreal más al sur de lo habitual. Pero el número de manchas solares es menor a la mitad de los que se observan durante los picos de ciclo en el siglo 20.

El análisis por expertos de la NASA y la Universidad de Arizona – derivado de las mediciones del campo magnético de 120.000 millas por debajo de la superficie del Sol – sugieren que el ciclo 25, cuyo pico debe llegar en 2022, será mucho más débil todavía.

De acuerdo con un artículo publicado la semana pasada por la Oficina Meteorológica, hay una posibilidad de 92 por ciento que tanto el ciclo 25 y los que tienen lugar en las décadas siguientes sean tan débiles como el “mínimo de Dalton de 1790 a 1830 . En este período, llamado así por el meteorólogo John Dalton, la temperatura media en algunas partes de Europa se redujo un 2C.

Sin embargo, también es posible que la nueva caída de la actividad solar pueda ser tan profunda como el “mínimo de Maunder” (en honor al astrónomo Edward Maunder), entre 1645 y 1715 en la parte más fría de la “Pequeña Edad de Hielo”, cuando, tanto el río Thames ferias como los canales de Holanda se congelaron.

Sin embargo, en su documento, la Oficina Meteorológica dijo que las consecuencias ahora sería insignificante – ya que el impacto del sol sobre el clima es mucho menor que las emisiones de dióxido de carbono. A pesar de que la actividad solar tenga su mínima hasta en 2100.  “Esto sólo provocaría una reducción en las temperaturas globales de 0.08C”, dijo Peter Stott, uno de los autores,: “Nuestros hallazgos sugieren que una reducción de la actividad solar a niveles no vistos en cientos de años no sería suficiente para contrarrestar la influencia dominante de los gases de efecto invernadero. ” Estos hallazgos son ferozmente disputadas por otros expertos en energía solar.

“La temperatura del planeta puede terminar mucho más fría que hace 50 años o más”, dijo Henrik Svensmark, director del Centro para la Investigación de Sol en el Instituto Nacional Espacial de Dinamarca. “Va a ser una larga batalla para convencer a algunos científicos del clima que el sol es importante. Es muy posible que el sol se va a encargar de demostrar esto por sí solo, sin la necesidad de su ayuda. ”

Señaló que, el afirmar el efecto del mínimo solar sería pequeña, la Oficina Meteorológica se basaba en los mismos modelos que están siendo socavados por la actual pausa en el calentamiento global. Los niveles de CO2 han seguido aumentando sin interrupción y, en 2007, la Oficina Meteorológica dijo que el calentamiento global estaba a punto de “rugir de nuevo”. Dijeron que entre 2004 y 2014 habría un aumento global de 0,3 º C. En 2009, prevía que al menos tres de los años 2009 a 2014 romperían el récord anterior de temperatura establecido en 1998.

Hasta el momento no hay ninguna señal de que nada de esto esté sucedinedo. Pero ayer un portavoz de la Oficina de Meteorología insistió en que sus modelos seguían siendo válidos. “La proyección de diez años sigue siendo una ciencia revolucionaria. El plazo para la proyección original aún no ha terminado “, dijo.

Dr. Nicola Scafetta, de la Universidad de Duke en Carolina del Norte, es el autor de varios artículos que argumentan que los modelos del clima de la Met Office muestran que debería haber habido un “calentamiento constante desde el 2000 hasta ahora”. “Si las temperaturas siguen manteniéndose estables o empiezan a enfriarse de nuevo, la divergencia entre los modelos y los datos registrados con el tiempo llegará a ser tan grande que toda la comunidad científica se cuestionará las teorías actuales,” dijo.

Él cree que el modelo Met Office concede una importancia mucho mayor al CO2 que al sol, por eso los modelos siempre concluirían que no habría enfriamiento. “La verdadera cuestión es si el modelo en sí es correcto,” dijo el Dr. Scafetta. Mientras tanto, uno de los expertos más eminenetes de los Estados Unidos sobre el clima, la profesora Judith Curry, del Instituto de Tecnología de Georgia, dijo que encontró la predicción de la Met Office de que la baja en la actividad solar fuera  “insignificante” muy difícil de entender. “Lo responsable sería aceptar el hecho de que los modelos pueden tener graves deficiencias en lo que respecta a la influencia del sol,” dijo la profesora Curry. En cuanto a la pausa del calentamiento, dijo que a muchos científicos no les sorprende “.

Argumentó que es cada vez más evidente que otros factores por encima del CO2, juegan un papel importante en el aumento o la caída de calor, tales como los ciclos de temperatura de 60 años de agua en los océanos Pacífico y Atlántico. “Ellos han sido suficientemente apreciados en términos de clima global”, dijo Curry. Cuando los dos océanos estaban fríos en el pasado, por ejemplo, de 1940 a 1970, el clima se enfrió. El ciclo frío del Pacífico hizo que el calentamiento se redujera en 2008 y el Atlántico también se cree capaz de cambiar en los próximos años.

Pal Brekke, asesor senior en el Centro Espacial de Noruega, dijo que a algunos científicos les es difícil aceptar la importancia de los ciclos del agua, porque hacerlo significa admitir que los océanos – no el CO2 – causó la mayor parte del calentamiento global entre 1970 y 1997. Lo mismo ocurre con el impacto del sol – que fue muy activo durante gran parte del siglo 20.

“La naturaleza está a punto de llevar a cabo un experimento muy interesante”, dijo. “Diez o quince años a partir de ahora, vamos a ser capaces de determinar mejor si el calentamiento del siglo 20 en realidad fue causado por el hombre o por la variabilidad natural.” Mientras tanto, desde finales del año pasado, las temperaturas mundiales se han reducido en más de medio grado, como consecuencia del efecto de “La Niña”, que  ha vuelto a surgir en el Pacífico Sur. “Ahora estamos en la segunda década de la pausa”, dijo Benny Peiser, director de la Fundación de Política por el Calentamiento Global. “Si no vemos pruebas convincentes de que el calentamiento global para el año 2015,  comenzará a ser claro que los modelos están equivocados. Y, si lo son, las implicaciones para algunos científicos podrían ser muy graves. ”

Traducido del original: Met Office: Global Warming Ended 15 years ago

Met Office: Global Warming Ended 15 Years Ago

Two of the scientific organizations that just a couple of years ago blamed humans for the planet’s warming, the Met Office and the University of East Anglia, now provide contrasting data showing that planetary warming ended in 1997.

by David Rose
MailOnline
January 29, 2012

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Read Full Article…

Our Planet Under Attack: Geoengineering the Environment

by Paul J. Watson
Infowars
November 14, 2011

The fact that the planet is being bombarded with chemicals from high-altitude spraying as part of numerous geoengineering programs being conducted by U.S. government agencies and universities that have been approved with no oversight whatsoever can no longer be denied.

The re-classification of global warming, a highly contentious and often scientifically fraudulent pseudo-science, as a “national security threat” has been exploited by governments as an excuse to play God, green lighting secret experiments on a massive scale that carry innumerable dangers to humans and their environment.

However, now that increasing awareness of geoengineering as a result of the chemtrails phenomenon has propagated widely, authorities are slowly being forced to disclose certain aspects of the program. We are now not far away from full disclosure of the true extent of geoengineering experimentation.

Scientists now admit that vapor trails from aeroplanes are creating “artificial clouds” that block out the sun. This is no longer a matter of debate. The chemtrail “conspiracy theorists” were proven correct.

Reading University’s Professor Keith Shine told the Daily Mail last year that the clouds “formed by aircraft fumes could linger ‘for hours’, depriving those areas under busy flight paths, such as London and the Home Counties, of summer sunshine.”

“Experts have warned that, as a result, the amount of sunlight hitting the ground could be reduced by as much as ten per cent. Professor Shine added: “Over the busiest areas in London and the South of England, this high-level cloud could cover the sky, turning bright sunshine into hazy conditions for the entire area. I expect the effects will get worse as the volume of air traffic increases.”

The report also makes reference to a 2009 Met Office study which found that high-level winds did not disperse contrails that later formed into clouds which covered an astonishing 20,000 miles.

Of course, only the completely naive would suggest that there is no connection between chemtrails that block out the sun, a phenomenon that has been ongoing for over a decade, and open calls on behalf of scientists to ‘reduce global warming’ by injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.

Mainstream science and academia has gone from dismissing chemtrails as a fantasy of paranoid conspiracy theorists to now accepting that they exist but claiming that they are natural and not artificially induced, despite numerous patents and scientific proposals that focus around using man-made dispersal of aerosols to alter the atmosphere.

The proposal to disperse sulphur dioxide in an attempt to reflect sunlight was discussed in a September 2008 London Guardian article entitled, Geoengineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming, in which Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, promoted the idea of injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.

“One approach is to insert “scatterers” into the stratosphere,” states the article. “Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.”

Experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government -backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who in 2009 began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.

The project is closely tied to an idea by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, who “proposed sending aircraft 747s to dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the far-reaches of the stratosphere to cool down the atmosphere.”

In 2008, scientist Tim Flannery also warned that “mankind might need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive,” adding that, “gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth’s stratosphere to keep out the sun’s rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.”

Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to geoengineer the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.

Given that sulphur emissions cause ‘global dimming’, is it any wonder that the emergence of the chemtrails phenomenon coincided with an average 22% drop in sunlight reaching the earth’s surface?

What is known about what happens when the environment is loaded with sulphur dioxide is bad enough, since the compound is the main component of acid rain, which according to the EPA “Causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage.”

Read Full Article…

There’s a mini ice age coming

It’s the Sun, Stupid!  Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson, London’s mayor

Sidney Morning Herald

The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game

Piers Corbyn

Well, folks, it’s tea-time on Sunday and for anyone involved in keeping people moving it has been a hell of a weekend. Thousands have had their journeys wrecked, tens of thousands have been delayed getting away for Christmas; and for those Londoners who feel aggrieved by the performance of any part of our transport services, I can only say that we are doing our level best.

Almost the entire Tube system was running on Sunday and we would have done even better if it had not been for a suicide on the Northern Line, and the temporary stoppage that these tragedies entail. Of London’s 700 bus services, only 50 were on diversion, mainly in the hillier areas. On Saturday, we managed to keep the West End plentifully supplied with customers, and retailers reported excellent takings on what is one of the busiest shopping days of the year.

We have kept the Transport for London road network open throughout all this. We have about 90,000 tons of grit in stock, and the gritters were out all night to deal with this morning’s rush. And yet we have to face the reality of the position across the country.

It is no use my saying that London Underground and bus networks are performing relatively well – touch wood – when Heathrow, our major international airport, is still effectively closed two days after the last heavy snowfall; when substantial parts of our national rail network are still struggling; when there are abandoned cars to be seen on hard shoulders all over the country; and when yet more snow is expected today, especially in the north.

In a few brief hours, we are told, the snowy superfortresses will be above us again, bomb bays bulging with blizzard. It may be that in the next hours and days we have to step up our de-icing, our gritting and our shovelling. So let me seize this brief gap in the aerial bombardment to pose a question that is bugging me. Why did the Met Office forecast a “mild winter”?

Do you remember? They said it would be mild and damp, and between one degree and one and a half degrees warmer than average. Well, I am now 46 and that means I have seen more winters than most people on this planet, and I can tell you that this one is a corker.

Never mind the record low attained in Northern Ireland this weekend. I can’t remember a time when so much snow has lain so thickly on the ground, and we haven’t even reached Christmas. And this is the third tough winter in a row. Is it really true that no one saw this coming?

Actually, they did. Allow me to introduce readers to Piers Corbyn, meteorologist and brother of my old chum, bearded leftie MP Jeremy. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.

Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its “mild winter” schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year’s mythical “barbecue summer”, and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.

He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people – notably in farming – are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.

He looks at the flow of particles from the Sun, and how they interact with the upper atmosphere, especially air currents such as the jet stream, and he looks at how the Moon and other factors influence those streaming particles.

He takes a snapshot of what the Sun is doing at any given moment, and then he looks back at the record to see when it last did something similar. Then he checks what the weather was like on Earth at the time – and he makes a prophecy.

I have not a clue whether his methods are sound or not. But when so many of his forecasts seem to come true, and when he seems to be so consistently ahead of the Met Office, I feel I want to know more. Piers Corbyn believes that the last three winters could be the harbinger of a mini ice age that could be upon us by 2035, and that it could start to be colder than at any time in the last 200 years. He goes on to speculate that a genuine ice age might then settle in, since an ice age is now cyclically overdue.

Is he barmy? Of course he may be just a fluke-artist. It may be just luck that he has apparently predicted recent weather patterns more accurately than government-sponsored scientists. Nothing he says, to my mind, disproves the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists, that our species is putting so much extra CO? into the atmosphere that we must expect global warming.

The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun. Is it possible that everything we do is dwarfed by the moods of the star that gives life to the world? The Sun is incomparably vaster and more powerful than any work of man. We are forged from a few clods of solar dust. The Sun powers every plant and form of life, and one day the Sun will turn into a red giant and engulf us all. Then it will burn out. Then it will get very nippy indeed.