Bishop Hill Whitehouse and the temperature standstill
Mar 15, 2013 Climate: Surface GWPF In the latest report from GWPF, David Whitehouse has examined the 21st century temperature standstill and the history of attempts to, ahem, deny its existence.
A new report written by Dr David Whitehouse and published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concludes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997.
After reviewing the scientific literature the reports concludes that the standstill is an empirical fact and a reality that challenges current climate models. During the time that the Earth’s global temperature has remained static the atmospheric composition of carbon dioxide has increased from 370 to 390 ppm.
“The standstill is a reality and is not the result of cherry-picking start and end points. Its commencement can be seen clearly in the data, and it continues to this day,” said Dr David Whitehouse, the author of the new report.
The report shows that the temperature standstill has been a much discussed topic in peer-reviewed scientific literature for years, but that this scientific debate has neither been followed by most of the media, nor acknowledged by climate campaigners, scientific societies and prominent scientists.
The report also surveys how those few journalists who have looked at the issue have been reporting the standstill, with many far too ready to dismiss it or lacking a sense of journalistic inquiry, preferring to reports squabbles rather than the science.
”If the standstill continues for a few more years it will mean that no one who has just reached adulthood, or younger, will have witnessed the Earth get warmer during their lifetime,” said the report’s author, Dr David Whitehouse.
In his foreword, Lord Turnbull, former Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service, commented:
“Dr Whitehouse is a man who deserves to be listened to. He has consistently followed an approach of examining observations rather than projections of large scale computer models, which are too often cited as ‘evidence’. He looks dispassionately at the data, trying to establish what message it tells us, rather than using it to confirm a pre-held view.”
Full report here
Reader Comments (62)
When did accurate satellite measurements really become available? How soon after that did the 'warming' cease to be apparent?
The cycnic might suggest that the two weren't too far temporally apart from each other.
Mar 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM | Latimer Alder
////////////////////////////////////////////
Satellite data goes back to 1979.
The satellite data, clearly shows no first order CO2 induced warming. The data sets are flat between 1979 and about 1997 and flat between 1999 and 2012. There is simply a step change around the super El Nino of 1998 when a large amount of heat was put out from the ocean into the atmosphere. As far as I am aware, no one has yet claimed that CO2 caused the 1998 super El Nino. The warmists, of course, argue that whilst there may be no first order correlation with CO2 this is due to other forccings (eg atmospheric aerosols such as SO2, other particulate matter and a slight reduction in insolation) acting in an equal and opposite direction. You will note the point that Mike makes above: Mar 16, 2013 at 12:56 AM | Mike
The satellite data sets therefore question whether there was any 'real' warming between 1979 and say 1997, and also whether there was any 'real' warming between 1999 to date. There has, of course, been some warming between 1979 to date but that is not linear but rather a step change associated with a one off event.
It may well be the case that the warming seen in the land thermoter data sets between 1979 to date is merely a facet of adjustments, uhi, station drop outs, and the like. It may be an illusion brought about by the bastardisation of those data sets, rather than real and genuine warming. No doubt, this will become clearer in the coming years. The issue is whether we are going to waste trillions of dollars on acting now with repect to a perceived risk, the certainties of which appear extremely shakey.
My lord Bishop,
Your castigation of Steve and Mike above was timely.
Would that you likewise condemn comments such as those from Stonyground regarding Sister Teresa.
Are we to approve religious hatred on this forum - or is it acceptable so long as it is only anti Catholic.
Let us please keep this site focused on matters appertaining to the great evil of so called Man Made Global Warming.
EM
If you are going to go prattling on about organisations and people you disapprove of in terms that cast doubt on their honesty and credibility — playing the man, as was pointed out — you might at least learn to spell. It just might add a tad to your own credibility.
patrick healy
Didn't you know anti-Catholicism is the last remaining acceptable prejudice? I have always said that if we were that unimportant they wouldn't bother attacking us. But I agree. Let's stick to the science and the politics. There is enough there to keep us busy.
No more discussion of religion please.
At the risk of upsetting the Bishop, patrick healy and Mike Jackson have introduced a rather unpleasant tone to the discussion. Stoneyground criticized someone's behavior without any reference to that person's religion, nationality, skin colour, sexual preference or any other characteristic that could mark the comment as prejudiced. The accuracy of his/her comment may be disputed, but to describe it as anti-catholic is a slur, not unlike the 'denier' slur many of us are familiar with. It would make things uncomfortable for all of us if we couldn't comment on Alex Salmond's pie-eating habits on the grounds that it is anti-Scottish.
Perhaps a bit off-topic, and it is a question I have asked before, with no answer offered: when was the shifting of recognised temperature recording stations from high latitudes and altitudes completed?
@Radical Rodent
perhaps it's an on going process
while not a direct answer to your question why not take a look at dt/T category at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/ and in particular these posts
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/dmtdt-an-improved-version/
Rhoda said:
Especially when your funding sources have been as diverse as British Petroleum and Shell to WWF and Greenpeace: History of the Climatic Research Unit.
FTA: "...with there being no deceleration of CO2 emissions..."
Emissions have, in fact, accelerated. It is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere which has decelerated, in lockstep with the standstill in temperatures.
The data are clear: temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentration, not the other way around, and not humans.
Furthermore, incremental increases in CO2 concentration in the present state of the Earth and its atmosphere have virtually no effect on temperatures.
There is nothing in the theory of the so-called Greenhouse Effect which demands that the surface warming function be monotonic with concentration. As Murray Gell-Mann was wont to say, in physics, that which is not specifically forbidden is compulsory. The AGW scare is a complete and utter scientific fiasco of the first order. Even its most fundamental tenets are wrong.
tallbloke says: "The generally positive PDO 1975-2000 was matched by the generally positive Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation over the same period."
I believe you may have been recalling that detrended North Pacific (north of 20N) sea surface temperature anomalies and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (which are detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies) were in synch for a while:
http://i56.tinypic.com/t9zhua.jpg
The graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/an-introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3/
Because the AMO and PDO data do not agree with your statement:
http://i45.tinypic.com/25t7zub.jpg
Regards
Thank you, Jeremy; at cursory glance, much of the information seems a bit too deep for me. I hope that the reason for my asking is obvious; however, not being an acknowledged “scientist”, and certainly not having the data, nor skills necessary for interpretation should I have it, I am not sure if it even is a relevant question. It just seems that there has been an acknowledged moving of data collection points away from colder to warmer environs; could the observed levelling of global warming be related to completion of moving the data reference points?
from the link-
2Phil Jones told BBC News. Adding just 6.66 percent more data (16 as opposed to 15 years) had, paraphrasing Jones’ own words, achieved statistical significance in scientific terms, which is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
98. At the time it was likely, given the La Niña experienced in 2010/11, that when 2011 data was added to the calculations, even by Jones’ own methods the trend would once again fall below significance. Indeed, this is what happened. Adding a small amount of data to a dataset and getting a different result is a warning sign to any scientist. Specialist journalists should know this."
i seem to remember a CG email where he hoped/prayed for a warm El Niño.
makes sense when you know the history, the trend/numbers is everything to these people (what can i say !)