David Rose On Global Cooling
By Paul Homewood
Cooling: New Met Office world data shows a big fall from heat spike caused by El Nino this year
Also in the Mail today is a response by David Rose to those who criticised his report a couple of weeks ago, which pointed out how global temperatures have plummeted in the last few months.
New official data issued by the Met Office confirms that world average temperatures have plummeted since the middle of the year at a faster and steeper rate than at any time in the recent past.
The huge fall follows a report by this newspaper that temperatures had cooled after a record spike. Our story showed that these record high temperatures were triggered by naturally occurring but freak conditions caused by El Nino – and not, as had been previously suggested, by the cumulative effects of man-made global warming.
The Mail on Sunday’s report was picked up around the world and widely attacked by green propagandists as being ‘cherry-picked’ and based on ‘misinformation’. The report was, in fact, based on Nasa satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower atmosphere over land – which tend to show worldwide changes first, because the sea retains heat for longer.
It is true that the massive 2015-16 El Nino – probably the strongest ever seen – took place against a steady warming trend, most of which scientists believe has been caused by human emissions
However, now the drop in temperature is also showing up in the authoritative Met Office ‘Hadcrut4’ surface record, compiled from measurements from more than 3,000 weather stations located around the world on both sea and land.
To the end of October, the last month for which figures have been released, Hadcrut4 had fallen about 0.5C from its peak in the spring.
The reason is the end of El Nino. The natural phenomenon, which takes place every few years and has a huge impact on world weather, occurs when water in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America gets up to 3C hotter than usual.
It has now been replaced by a weak La Nina, when the water becomes colder than usual. This means temperatures may still have some way to fall.
El Nino is not caused by greenhouse gases and has nothing to do with climate change. It is true that the massive 2015-16 El Nino – probably the strongest ever seen – took place against a steady warming trend, most of which scientists believe has been caused by human emissions.
But when El Nino was triggering new records earlier this year, some downplayed its effects. For example, the Met Office said it contributed ‘only a few hundredths of a degree’ to the record heat. The size of the current fall suggests that this minimised its impact. When February produced a new hot record for that month, at the very peak of El Nino, newspapers in several countries claimed that this amounted to a ‘global climate emergency’, and showed the world was ‘hurtling’ towards the point when global warming would become truly dangerous. Now, apparently, the immediate threat has passed. It would be just as misleading to say lower temperatures caused by La Nina meant the world was into a new long-term cooling.
The Mail on Sunday’s report was picked up around the world and widely attacked by green propagandists as being ‘cherry-picked’ and based on ‘misinformation’
El Nino is not caused by greenhouse gases and has nothing to do with climate change
But the big question is: what will happen when both El Nino and La Nina are over and the Pacific water returns to its ‘neutral’, average state? Professor Judith Curry, of Georgia Tech in Atlanta, who is president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said it would take years before it was clear whether the long-term warming trend was slowing down, staying the same or accelerating.
‘The bottom line is that we can’t read too much into the temperatures of a year or two,’ she said. ‘We will need the perspective of another five years to understand what is going on.’
The Mail on Sunday report two weeks ago, showing that world temperatures are fast falling from their record peak, triggered outrage from green lobbyists and rival papers around the world.
There were claims – now exploded by the Met Office data shown here – that our report was ‘misleading’ and ‘cherry-picked’.
Yet bizarrely, the fiercest criticism was reserved for claims we never made – that there isn’t a long-term warming trend, mainly caused by human emissions.
This just wasn’t in our report – which presumably, critics hadn’t even read.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It doesn’t bode well for those in fuel poverty. The sun has gone quiet again, with no sunspots.
No it doesn’t, and the huge plunge makes reasonable sense. The ’98 el nino happened during a not yet quiet Sun, so the heat put up by it was being replaced by the Sun. This el nino pulled a massive amount of heat out of the ocean and the quiet Sun was not replacing it, thus the cooler water started to draw heat back out of the air. It doesn’t seem unreasonable at all to see this drop in temperature. The question is, really, how much further will it drop before it levels off. It would seem reasonable that the Sun would be heating the tropics more during spring and fall and not so much during the southern hemisphere summer. Of course, the northern hemisphere summer is closer to the Sun, but there are land masses that don’t store heat as well as that big old ocean basin seems to.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
When February produced a new hot record for that month, at the very peak of El Nino, newspapers in several countries claimed that this amounted to a ‘global climate emergency’, and showed the world was ‘hurtling’ towards the point when global warming would become truly dangerous. Now, apparently, the immediate threat has passed. It would be just as misleading to say lower temperatures caused by La Nina meant the world was into a new long-term cooling.
Sensible words Craig. Those in the Climate Science community abandoned science long ago. Interesting thread over at Cliscept. It demonstrates how lacking in selfawareness some are.
Why does anyone pay attention to the HadCrut surface based measures that are known to be inaccurate, often ‘adjusted’ and fudged, and incomplete. Please only use the satellite records for temperature as they are more complete, and to the best of my knowledge are not subject to fudging. According to satellite data ive seen we didnt get such a large El Nino spike as the HadCrutters claimed.
The charts shown in this post are not easy to compare. One shows the monthly global surface air temperatures 1995-2016. The other shows the monthly Pacific sea surface anomaly for El-Nino and La-Nina 1995-2016…source not given? Nino 3.4?
Both 1998 and 2016 El-Ninos (3.4) peaked in January and ended in May-June. La-Nina “peaked” in December 1998/January 1999. The current La-Nina (3.4) is still underway but is way behind with a month to go?
The air temperatures are from the Met Office? Peaking at 15.1°C…this year.
From NOAA however the global Air-Sea temperatures peaked in 2015 in July at 16.61°C. This past July was at 16.67°C.
There thus seems to be a big disconnect with the Met Office chart shown here? Maybe someone can explain the confusion?
I recognize the second chart as world temperature anomalies – not the ENSO index.
Still, any Figure or Illustration should have a caption.
Yes, I think the second chart is the one David Rose used last week, RSS Land
Paul is right. I looked back and the figure legend says that it is LAND…only. So..what then are the values in the first chart? “World data”?
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Sorry guys (& gals), I’m with Mikey Mann on this.
The Graun reported
[My bold]
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/04/is-el-nino-or-climate-change-behind-the-run-of-record-temperatures
So surely, that massive drop of 0.5C has to be indicative we’ve saved too much CO2.
Mann – “A lot of folks…”
Is that supposed to be a scientific citation? Quel CLOWN!!!!
You people are causing the cooling by not believing enough.
The non-believers need to be cleared out unless they repent and state a belief in man’s wicked CO2 causing all this warming that is so evident (on the models).
/sarc-off
Tempting though it is to place a lot of faith in the latest numerical results for climate data if it appears to support your viewpoint it is probably wise to refrain from comment until at least one further datum is available – that is, wait another month (or two) before committing yourself to analytical discussion of what might be happening. Spotting a possible change point in a climate time series is not as straightforward as many people seem to imagine. I shall wait for another three more data points before forming my opinion Remember always that the most influential points in a first order linear regression analysis are the first and last, and that points in the centre of the series have effectively no influence on the slope (trend) of the series.
“…points in the centre… have… no influence on the slope…”
Au contraire.
A counter example:
Run a regression of
Y = the series 100
101
102
103
104
105
100
on a column of ones for the constant and a column for the time,
X = 1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
and you get Y = 101.07 + 0.34 * T. (POSITIVE SLOPE)
Now do a regression of
Y’ = the series 100
100
100
100
100
100
100
on X
and you get Y’ = 100.00 + 0.00*T. (NO SLOPE)
Despite Y and Y’ having the same start and finish values
QED
The formatting did not come out right:
Y =
100
101
102
103
104
105
100
X =
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
Y’ =
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
I really don’t know how to fathom it, on the one hand most consumers in western society don’t give a flying fig about ‘man made global warming’ and if one observes so many NOP’s since particularly COP Copenhagen………….. asking similar questions the answer is pretty well emphatic – “not bovvered”.
Thus, the green blob has largely failed in convincing mankind of well, erm of, man made warming.
But then and in seemingly in direct conflict with the conclusion above, so many people have and by somehow arrived at another daft conclusion. Alas, that although believing we all ain’t going to fry the planet……in order, as some illogically framed sop to the green blob – giving up reliance on fossil fuel combustion as our prime source of energy production and replacing….. reliable energy production and changing over to ruinables – is the penance we all must adhere to!
The utter paradox of such mental gymnastics discombobulates me, it’s not logical but it seems a common position, whether or not NOPs [yer know published by Greenpiss and YouGov….] “70% agree with the notion of birdmincers, as, are the answer!”? – are telling the truth is another question to debate. But many western consumers are reluctantly signed up to the ‘green agenda’ – even if they think it’s total bollocks.
What madness is this? Furthermore, do people believe in faeries are living at the bottom of the garden? And that Socialism can be any answer to aught of import, then, we really are living on cloud 9 western cuckoo land.
As to the ENSO land data T sequences, I don’t believe at all that the high point exceeded 1998, unless the figures were fixed and I know that indubitably they were, Obama had a Paris agreement to reach and the French were fully signed up to that.
BBC World Service at it again last night:
Research in Norway show reindeer underweight due to Global Warming..were 50kg now 48Kg. Its punched out fast and unrelated to the thread of the news.
Methane 30 times worse than CO2 due to Climate change. Nothing else just that largely meaningless bollox!
How do you weigh a reindeer in the wild? Sort of like those truck check points on the highway?
Dunno..a program was on a few days earlier (BBC?) with two Norwegian girls in a family moving a huge reindeer herd away from snow covered land to an island (200kms up) where they could feed up and give birth. They fattened up gave birth and returned. The only bother to the family was the sea/golden eagles on the island. No moaning and they were pretty well off from that occupation from what I could see. The family carried some food for the deer on the journey..so they would loose weight anyway. However, they made up for that on the snow free island. Centuries old stuff!
If this goes pop, everybody and his misses will be out in the backyard fracking away!
‘How Britain’s central heating reserve is running low’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/11/britains-central-heating-reserve-running-low/
It doesn’t bode well when coupled with the shortage of electricity. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/11/britain-facing-energy-crisis-could-could-see-families-pay-extra/
But looking on the bright side, if people have an electricity blackout, then they can’t run their central heating, so less gas is used. It’s a win-win situation!
They are trying to make our energy supply exclusive! Make yourselves ready! This will end in a fight!
‘Britain facing energy crisis that could see families pay extra to keep the lights on while neighbours ‘sit in the dark”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/11/britain-facing-energy-crisis-could-could-see-families-pay-extra/
“…choose to pay for a higher level of reliability…”
And what happens if you are poor? Oh, I know, you become a cold, dead ,old-age pensioner.
I would like an answer to my questions if possible please.
I came across the 1997 issue of Vital Signs by the Worldwatch Institute when sorting out a bookcase yesterday. I note from the graphs that carbon emissions increased from an estimated 280ppm in about 1760 to 362ppm 1996 (but based on estimates from 1986?) in line with the increase in population. The population more than doubled between 1950 and 1996 with about 98% of this growth in poorer countries. If this was the case why on earth didn’t the UN stop funding population growth in countries that would inevitably increase carbon emissions as a consequence?
Surely if anthropomorphic climate change is an existential threat to our species, wilfully increasing the population is an act of folly at best and a crime against humanity at worst?
Furthermore the section on Atmospheric Trends contained an item by someone called Seth Dunn and according to a graph showing the average temperature at the earth’s surface between the years 1950-1996 (source: Goddard Institute for Space Studies), the average temperature between 1950 and 1980 was about 15 C. According to the current UCAR/NCAR website the average temperature for the same period is quoted as “around 14 C” with the temperature in 2015 “the hottest year on record” being “about 1 C warmer than the 1951-1980 base period”. Now I agree that 15 is about 1 higher than 14 but 15 is not higher than 15.
Am I misinterpreting the data?
GISS is fond of adjusting ‘the data’ including adjusting their own adjustments sometimes.
That is why we cynics put more weight on the two independent analyses (RSS and UAH) of satellite data, where any adjustments
(1) seem related to genuine refinements of method,
(2) do not always go one, convenient , way, and
(3) are small in relation to the “big picture ” since 1978.
We note that RSS have always been strong warmists and UAH luke-warmists and so are not likely to have an unconscious bias to downplaying genuine increases.
In reality, they have not got a clue what the global temperature is.
In fact many would argue that the whole concept is meaningless
Paul I agree. The first chart here is supposedly based on Met Office “world data” but it seems to support your view? Who has the clue where those bizarre data are found and available? Have you checked with the Met Office? I cannot find ANY data to support those numbers… those on the vertical axis and the “peaks”