Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

That piece above seems to contradict itself. It says that according to the UK Met there hasn't been any warming the past 15 years but then it says.
[rquoter]The UK Met office disagrees, saying according to their numbers, the decade of the 2000's was the warmest on record and they believe the warming will continue soon. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data."[/rquoter]

So what is it?

Looking at NASA's data it does appear that mean temperature has leveled off somewhat in the last 10 years but the trend is upward over the past 130 years.

 

The standard confusion between short term fluctuations and long term trending. I swear to god it seems like morons multiply at a geometric rate.

 

Interesting. I always like to look at the facts, not what Al Gore assures me of.

The bottom line is that there are many who are personally and emotionally invested in that they believe in global warming -- this leads to bias. I prefer the facts.

 

LOL you have just as much emotional investment in being against it. Don't fool yourself that you don't tow the party line 110%.

 

It stopped raining yesterday evening, ergo I have thrown away all of my umbrellas.

 

Here is another article about it:

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)


Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By DAVID ROSE
Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012
<br><p>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.</font></p><p>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.</font></p><p>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.</font></p><div class="clear"> </div><div class="thinCenter">
<img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-117F2046000005DC-981_468x286.jpg" width="468" height="286" alt="A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age" class="blkBorder" />
<p class="imageCaption">A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age</p></div>
<p>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.</font></p><p>Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. </font></p><p>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.</font></p><p>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. <br></font></p><p>
</div></p><p>According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a&nbsp; 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.</font></p><p>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. </font></p><div class="clear"> </div><div class="thinCenter">
<img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-1180A4F1000005DC-28_468x286.jpg" width="468" height="286" alt="The world average temperature from 1997 to 2012" class="blkBorder" />
</div>
<p>Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest&nbsp; a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’</font></p><p>These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.</font></p><p>‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’</font></p><p>He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming. </font></p><p>CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998. </font></p><div class="clear"> </div><div class="thinCenter">
<img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-1180A549000005DC-715_468x290.jpg" width="468" height="290" alt="World solar activity cycles from 1749 to 2040" class="blkBorder" />
</div>
<p>So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.</font></p><p>‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said. </font></p><p>Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’. </font></p><p>‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.</font></p><p>He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the&nbsp; Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand. </font></p><p>‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’. </font></p><div class="clear"> </div><div class="thinCenter">
<img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-1180A572000005DC-276_468x290.jpg" width="468" height="290" alt="Four hundred years of sunspot observations" class="blkBorder" />
</div>
<p>She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. </font></p><p>‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years . </font></p><p>Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997. </font></p><p>The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century. </font></p><p>‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’</font></p><p>Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific. </font></p><p>‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’</font></p><br><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

It's funny that hacked email's don't show global warming to be a fraud but do show the the anti-global warming crowd trying to use money to influence against global warming science.

Here's a tip from history. When rich people are against science, it's never a good thing.

The documents show oil interests and others paying money to help turn opinion away from global warming science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/s...l=1&adxnnlx=1329404528-FYG2/TJPH3j/ujzCAJIC9w

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/climate-sceptics-pai-heartland-institute

 

I don't particularly enjoy responding to trolls, but here's the met's response, Hightop:

This is blatant propaganda, similar to the absolutely horrendous op-ed recently published in the wall street journal.

Do some research for once instead of just regurgitating crummy articles that vaguely align with your bizarrely nonsensical politics.

 

Getting defensive about global warming is stupid.

 

No, being wrong is stupid.

 

unwillingness to discuss facts, but instead hurl insults is a sign of defensiveness. Let's let facts and reason rule the day.

 

And this is why. Good day.

 

I just reporting what the Met Office had to say. Go take your vitamins, douchebag.

 

Why so defensive? Don't you know how stupid that is?

 

Except for the fact that isn't what they said...

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

You posted one man's interpretation of their report. That person happens to be David Rose who's known to have an anti-climate change bias.

 

looks like surrender

victory for Hightop

 

Did you miss the Met's response? Or just ignorning it?

 

So you are saying we cannot predict the future? Interesting.

 

I swear to God my 8-month old daughter has better reading comprehension than some of you.

 

Thread is a troll magnet apparently.