Feeds

back to article Global warming still stalled since 1998, WMO Doha figures show

Figures released by the UN's World Meteorological Organisation indicate that 2012 is set to be perhaps the ninth hottest globally since records began - but that planetary warming, which effectively stalled around 1998, has yet to resume at the levels seen in the 1980s and early 1990s. The WMO figures are produced by averaging …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

That's because it is called "climate change" not global warming. Some areas warm, some don't.Look at our crazy floods in the UK can you really say that "all is well".

17
35
Bronze badge
Stop

You mean the crazy practice of building on flood plains and failing to manage the inevitable consequences

70
2

Take the floods of 1953 where 307 people died and 24000 homes were damaged or destroyed.

http://thamesweb.com/1953-floods.html

There are always floods. If you factor in the massive paving over of gardens then the flooding situation is probably no worse than it has ever been.

33
0

A few thousands years ago I heard some dude had to build a friggin' ark!

34
2
Silver badge

Also paving front/back gardens. Britain's not as absorbent as it once was.

14
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

I think that maybe what the OP was referring to, if somewhat opaquely, is that the severity and frequency of 'extreme' weather events, such as the flooding in the UK (which is more severe in many places than previously recorded at any time), is increasing. This is one of the consequences of 'climate change'. Others include changes to stratospheric wind patterns, which cause 'blocking', leading to unusual weather patterns such as the unprecedented droughts, heatwaves, and flooding that have occurred in recent years, and also changes to ocean circulation patterns, which alter salinity and temperature gradients, as well as increases in oceanic CO2 concentration, which affects organisms which build their shells out of carbonate minerals such as aragonite.

Y'know, things like that, rather than just the idiocy of building on flood plains. It's probably also worth noting that much of the flooding currently subsiding in the country is in places NOT built on flood plains

11
28

Weather is Weather, my understanding is that the Jetsream is South of where it normally sits - nothing to do with climate change. At the start of the year we were told we were in for record droughts due to man made climate change what happened? Record flooding due to (you guessed it) man made climate change!

You climatephiles really get your rocks off blaming any fart or whisper on catastrophic man made climate change.

28
4
Silver badge

You can't blame a single event on climate change. But you can track extreme weather events over time and measure the frequency that they occur. If that frequency is increasing then it reasonable to conclude that a contributory factor is likely to be climate change.

9
5
Silver badge

I bet the jet stream getting stuck all the time has something to do with the rapid warming that has happened in the arctic in recent years

5
7
Silver badge

Is it really getting worse

I'm not really sure these weather 'disasters' are actually getting any worse in frequency. There were certainly a lot of incidents in the past, some massively worse than now. In the past, flood plains regularly flooded, often every year. I suspect the difference is we perceive them to be worse now as we've decided to build on the flood plains!! Effectively, the problem hasn't got worse (flood plain still floods), but we've made the impact worse by putting houses etc. there. Therefore, we perceive the impact as worse.

Let's not forget the frozen Thames. Let's not forget that it's only relatively recently that the Thames was restricted to its current size by the building of embankments. Previously, it was much, much wider. Previously it regularly flooded onto its flood plain, often every year. It's just that now, we've constrained it to such an extent it floods a lot less, but with much greater impact when it does.

So, I suspect the weather and it's 'disasters' haven't really changed in severity or regularity. I suspect we've simply made the same problem worse by poor planning and thought processes.

4
1
FAIL

-- That's because it is called "climate change" not global warming. Some areas warm, some don't.Look at our crazy floods in the UK can you really say that "all is well". --

You speak as if there had never been floods or droughts in the history of the Earth. Entire civilisations have been wiped out by them in the past. Some experts say a drought brought about the end of the Egyptian Pharaohs/empire. And flooding is an annual occurrence on the Nile.

In the UK though, we simply don't invest in the infrastructure to cope with adverse conditions. Hell, a few leaves on a railway track can cause widespread disruption here. If we'd invest in better drainage and flood prevention, there'd be no problem. But once again, government is penny pinching on essentials, then once the damage is done, it decides to act. Which is inevitably more expensive (subsidising the insurance industry).

5
1
Thumb Up

Re: Is it really getting worse

That, and much better monitoring and reporting than ever before.

7
0
Silver badge

Perhaps there's just more reporting

With the media increasingly out to create hype, perhaps there's just more reporting?

8
2
Bronze badge
Mushroom

It is worse because the average temperature is higher than in 1953 due to global warming, so the atmosphere holds more water....meaning storms are likely to dump more rain on us...

nb - global warming hasnt ceased at all since 1998. Where did he get that crap from? See http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/i8_GlobalTemp.PNG

5
8
Gold badge
Meh

"Weather is Weather, my understanding is that the Jetsream is South of where it normally sits - nothing to do with climate change. "

How about if stays South of where it's normally at?

Or it moves South of where it's normally at every year from now on?

Any one year it's weather.

Every year (or every year at the same time)

What's that?

1
3

Really ?

Track extreme weather events ? so easy just by looking over your window ? or You mean by storm chasers :) with fancy cars ?

As far we know first satelite realised was Russian "Sputnik" - but it could only beep ;) and it was cold war anyway ;) So you are right - more people or meerkats looking there is more storms or predators detected ;)

and hotter is gets ;) But how cold it was when no one has been looking ;)

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Cool, now that I know RICHTO is a climate catastrophe peddler I *know* I'm on the right side of the argument.

3
2

'the severity and frequency of 'extreme' weather events......... is increasing.'

And your proof of this statement is?

Hmm thought so; there is none, because it just isn't true. Before you make sweeping claims, at least check the facts or you end up looking like just another ill-informed climate alarmist bigot - which I'm sure you're not.

4
1
Mushroom

and Chicken Licken is running to see the king

to tell him that the Sky is falling in.

We're all DOOMED, we're alll GOING TO DIE ! You name it Anthropogenic Global Warming , Mayan calendar 21 Dec 2012 , 2038 bug , impending meteorite , Yellow stone park and other super volcanos going pop, Global Nuclear War ...... etc ......

How can I sleep at night ?

Easy , and that is to realise that a lot of what is dressed up as science is in fact educated guess work, and generally the "guess" bit of it is much larger than the usually well meaning scientist(s) either knowing or unknowingly admits to . I suppose they need to ensure their funding stream and have to be certain about some things to convince others to carry on funding them. I can understand that, and I also understand that there is a large range of "guess" in their analysis of chaotic systems.

and yes , we are all going to die sometime, although hopefully not all at the sametime :-D .

( In fact Global Nuclear War is probably the only one humankind is in any real control of )

0
0
Holmes

Just planet Earth trying to compensate. It won't be able to do that forever.

1
19
Holmes

Forever is a long time

I agree - eventually the sun will blow up/go out and planet Earth won't be able to compensate for that.

However I do think that planet Earth will be just fine for the next couple of million years regardless of what we do. Life will adapt.

We consider dinosaurs to have been the losers in evolution - they only lasted 2 million years or so - we havent been around for a million yet so we might be jumping the gun a little there.

13
1

"Mother Earth is Angry and Punishing Wicked Mankind"

"Just planet Earth trying to compensate. It won't be able to do that forever."

A large number of superstitious assumptions in those 14 words.

The more superstitious people are, the more they claim "science" supports their superstitions.

27
2

Re: Forever is a long time

Ooh, I know this one!

"If man survives for as long as the least successful of the dinosaurs—those creatures whom we often deride as nature's failures—then we may be certain of this: for all but a vanishingly brief instant near the dawn of history, the word 'ship' will mean— 'spaceship.'" - Clarkey.

And the dinosauruseruses were around for 160+ million years or so, versus a few hundred thousand for us.

But they are all dead now, like we all will be soon.

2
6
Anonymous Coward

Err... No.

I assume you're talking about Gaia theory, basically the planet is a series of massive feedback systems. That's correct, but there is no effort or no healing. It's a feedback system there is just as little effort as there is in a thermostat switching on or off you heating. It's also not healing, it's returning to or otherwise achieving a steady state.

3
1

@Omgwtfbbqtime

I agree that, in all likelihood, life will adapt, but that doesn't necessarily mean the human race will be able to adapt. This isn't, in my opinion, about saving the planet but more about saving ourselves.

2
3
Headmaster

Re: Forever is a long time

Actually dinosaurs lasted over 160 million years and dominated the Earth for some 135 million.

Anyway, yes, Earth will survive any climate change until Sun gobbles it up, but whether the human species will is another matter.

1
1

Re: Forever is a long time

Dino's haven't all died out, they have just got fewer (crocs) and evolved to the skies (birds)...

0
0
Pint

Re: Forever is a long time

"...the dinosauruseruses ...are all dead now."

Nope, not "all" of them.

Some of their descendents are outside right now, perched on telephone wires and pooping on your car.

3
0
Gold badge
Boffin

Re: Forever is a long time

"We consider dinosaurs to have been the losers in evolution - they only lasted 2 million years or so "

I think you'll find that was 70 million.

But they died out 65 million years ago.

0
0
Silver badge

>it's returning to or otherwise achieving a steady state.

entropy?

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: Forever is a long time

All the fun ones are gone.

0
0
Silver badge
Coat

Re: Forever is a long time

Yep. In less than 100 years, we'll all be gone.

0
2
Holmes

Re: "Mother Earth is Angry and Punishing Wicked Mankind"

It is called an eco-system.It has build in systems to compensate... just not for very long if things get bad. Melting polar ice for example has been able to keep global warming in check for now.

0
2

Re: Forever is a long time

Lead on MacDuff.

0
0
Thumb Down

Stalled? I don't think so!

Stalled? I don't think so!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

11
11

Re: Stalled? I don't think so!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, honestly Skeptical Science, oh my sides, lol.

Folks you better read it before SS go and change the article to read something else and edit the comments to make it look like they that's what they were saying all along. You might get confused though by what appear to be suddenly out of context critical comments.

Thanks for the chortle. You were kidding right?

10
7
FAIL

Dishonest headline is dishonest

Checks byline: Yep, Lewis Page.

Checks story: Yep, headline wildly overstates reality

15
10
Anonymous Coward

Wrong.

Global temperature is at a standstill and has been for 15 years.

You're the one being dishonest.

So it isn't getting warmer, but the weather must be getting more crazy and extreme, right?

Actually:

A new paper published in the European Physical Journal finds that there has been no increase in extreme weather in central Europe over the past 250 years. Furthermore, the paper finds that extreme weather decreased in the Greater Alpine Region of Europe over the past 30 years in comparison to the preceding 30 year period. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that global warming does not increase extreme weather as claimed by climate alarmists.

The study’s main result – in the concluding words of the Austrian researcher at the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna – is “the clear evidence that climate variability did rather decrease than increase over the more than two centuries of the instrumental period in the Greater Alpine Region [GAR], and that the recent 30 years of more or less pure greenhouse-gas-forced anthropogenic climate were rather less than more variable than the series of the preceding 30-year normal period.” Put another way, greenhouse-gas-induced warming has not led to more frequent and/or greater extremes of either precipitation or temperature in the GAR, in clear refutation of the climate-alarmist claim as to what, in their view of the subject, should have been occurring.

Changes of regional climate variability in central Europe during the past 250 years - Böhm, R.

The European Physical Journal Plus, Volume 127, article id. #54

So no Warming, and no Weirding.

Now go and have a good cry.

21
12
Silver badge

Re: Wrong.

Mmm, freshly picked cherries. Yummy!

I guess we'll all be fine, since everyone on the entire planet lives in the Greater Alpine Region then?

What's that as a percentage of the Earth's populated surface?

5
14
Anonymous Coward

Re: Dishonest headline is dishonest

If we cant measure global warming by the average global warming (wasnt there a graph about this?) then how is it done? By events easily explained but now given new meaning (see first post)?

Or do we measure global warming on co2, which is a gas not a temperature? Therefore it would surely be called globalCO2(ing?)? But they called it global warming and claimed warming using the graphs and pretty pictures of the end due to warming. But you say looking at the actual global warming is overstating reality.

Go on...

4
2
Silver badge
Big Brother

Re: Wrong. @AC 12:41

All overlooking the obvious:- Warble gloaming has been hammered ad infinutum ad nauseam by our wonderful, altruistic, deeply caring ruling élite, so they have oodles of our money (which we earned) so they can save us from our own follies as they, naturally know best.

OR

They're a bunch of self-seeking shysters, gleefully jumping on any excuse to misappropriate more of our hard-earned to their own pockets and/or for their own benefit, and the day when I accept that Balls, Harman, Cameron OR Cleggover know better than I about anything, is the day when my brain will have ceased to be.

9
1
Silver badge

Re: Wrong.

"Global temperature is at a standstill and has been for 15 years."

Even the graph linked in the article shows that to be false

8
9
Thumb Up

@ Wrong. @AC 12:41 (Ted Treen)

There's also the:

It's not your fucked up, self interested, totally corrupt planners/politicians, grabbing backhanders from every dredging, fracking, construction conglomerate they can find, who are turning your country into an uninhabitable wasteland devoid of even the most resilient wildlife and from which your house is liable fall/be swept/explode at any moment. It's, er, all China's fault. Those commie bastards. Tell them to stop burning so much coal and it'll all go away. Honest. You can trust me, I'm a politician. This really is very serious. We all care about our country don't we. Look I'm doing everything I can... I'm jetting off to Doha to spend two weeks fornicating with prostitutes giving those evil commies a stern telling off. Don't forget to vote.

...angle to consider. I doubt the unimaginably sweet appeal of that has eluded our political lords and masters. And the poor fuckwitted masses seem unable get enough of it!

3
2
Bronze badge

Re: Wrong.

Nope it's not, use your grey sells a bit, ant take a look at earth's poles. If you know enough physics you'll understand.

Made a lengthy post here, try to read it and understand it, though my English isn't perfect.

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

"no warming since 1998"?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html

9
11

Re: "no warming since 1998"?

You've just posted a four year old article?

Jeez, the Global Warming crackpots aren't even trying any more.

18
10
Bronze badge

Re: "no warming since 1998"?

Despite being all of four years old, the New Scientist article was rather good.

It is noteworthy that some climate scientists then had suggested "changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [would] bring cooler sea surface temperatures."

Also noteworthy is the conclusion that, "If these predictions are right ... you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped."

Is seems to me they pretty much had the measure of it.

9
7
Silver badge

Re: "no warming since 1998"?

The fact that the article is 4 years old demonstrates eloquently that Lewis is simply rehashing a long-discredited view.

6
9
Anonymous Coward

Re: "no warming since 1998"?

@David Pollard: The christians say something similar dont they? Judgement day will come but while nothing changes people wont believe.

1
0
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: "no warming since 1998"?

Probably also worth noting that NewScientist is a self-declared major proponent of Anthropogenic Climate Change, hardly a wise choice if you want un-biased analysis.

8
7

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.