http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
And they admit the pause is real and not uncommon. As weve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade. Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual. And for the money quote: Q.3 Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised? We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by external forcings, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade but this is an area of ongoing research. . On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey, look who is getting their "science" information from British > tabloids! Jerry, I don't know what school saw fit to give you a math > degree but they should really ask for it back. The twisted lies that you > support people doing with data are just odious and unbecoming. > > Suffice to say that the only way in which you get a "pause" in the rise of > temperature is if you cherry pick exactly the two data points that the > Daily Mail did. A very high point in 97 and a relatively low one in 2012. > If you picked, say, a low point in 2000 and a high point in 2010, it would > look like it had skyrocketed while covering almost exactly the same time > period. > > In related news, I can conclusively determine whether ColdFusion is dead > based on mailing list volume snapshots taken when new CF releases are > announced or on New Years Eve. > > For anyone that actually cares about the data, here is a pretty decent run > down with appropriate graphs: > http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2012/10/british_met_office_refutes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:358772 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
