Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.


Yes, ignore actual information and go with the computer model.

From the article.

Flawed science costs us dearly

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

I don’t know for certain whether or not global warming exists. However, I do know for certain that temperature rise and the melting glaciers do not necessarily go hand in hand. And I learned that in 7th grade science class.

The experiment was to simply put ice cubes in a glass of water and chart the temperature every minute for a period of time, which included the period when the ice was melting and when the ice had melted. The temperature was basically stable during the period the ice was melting, and once the ice melted, the temperature skyrocketed. This is the way systems operate.

Just to be clear. global warming is real. It happens every Spring.

So the whole AGW stuff that I was taught when I was a kid is a lie? :slight_smile:
I thank Michael Voris for opening my mind about that issue. :slight_smile:

“Global warming” as defined by the scare-monger radicals is just another way to control people and justify stealing their money. Its also been dis-proven but the sheeple who follow this failed “science” have been successfully indoctrinated by the Al Gore maniacs. Liberalism is a severe mental disorder.

Sorry. Energy traders need Global Warming to institute Carbon Credit trading as a choke point for energy use. One may confidently predict that, as with FREE HEALTH CARE that it will be declared a hidden tax paid for at great expense by us. Just say no! God help us!


I’ve never been a big fan of the global warming thing. It it’s true then… well… that stinks. If this new data is true, then that’s awesome :stuck_out_tongue:

I’d just like to point out that 3,000 points to cover then entire earth is not a very dense sampling.

Earth Surface area: 510,072,000 sq km

510,072,000 / 3,000 == 510,072 / 3 == 170024 sq km (roughly 105,648 sq mi) per sample point.

At 3,794,100 sq mi of surface area for the US, that means that there were only about 35 sample points to cover the entire US. That’s not even one per state.

While the figures are promising, it would be nice if they had has a higher sample pool to work from.

You must still be a kid… :wink: Or else I’m old…

When I went to school and learned stuff I learned about Global Cooling and the CO2 levels were proof of Global Cooling. The notion was presented in all the science museums, in texts I read, even popular press caught on.

Now the same CO2 is proof of global warming, becoming Marxists will still prevent Cooling/Warming from happening. And I am told that scientists were not teaching global cooling and I am incorrect for saying so. :eek:

My kids will probably be warned about “Global Temperature Stagnation”. :shrug:

When I was a boy, I was taught about how real AGW is. That continued right until high school! :eek:

Even if global warming is real, Church doctrine teaches that people are more important than the environment. That is, to force people to remain poor for the sake of the environment is against social justice. The way people go about is just plain wrong, especially the burden imposed upon developing nations. “Humanity” is an abstraction, a human is real.

On the other hand I think such countries should try to keep the environment clean. When I first moved to India, the first thing that I noticed was how absolutely unclean the environment is. Terrible hygiene and cleanliness makes it a very unhealthy place to live in. The least the government should do is install garbage cans on the street.

I’m of a mixed mind, and that’s approaching this as a statistician and an economist.

I’ve always been shaky on global warming because our observation period has always been too short - 100 years is really not sufficient to model the longer-term trends in warming and cooling that do occur on earth. If we applied the same window to the start of the 14th century and used the same mechanics to forecast temperatures in the 15th century, we’d conclude a cooling trend would lead to continued crop failures due to lack of warm summers in the Northern Hemisphere.

A more technical concern is that we tend to over-rely upon linear modeling when we know it’s a poor fit for the purposes of prediction. I see that in all fields, not just climate change.

A better description for climate change needs to be one of looking for increasing volatility in temperatures - air and water, not just one or the other - rather than actual observation of the temperature itself. This is because, if I’m understanding the models correctly, global warming isn’t supposed to just be a simple linear increase in temperatures over time, but rather an increasing volatility due to the higher energy trapped (the “warming” part) playing out effects upon the dynamic climate systems of our planet, so that we’ll not only see increasing water temperatures but also decreases in temperatures (as with the unexpected peak of Antarctic ice currently) that are localized in time and place. To my knowledge, climate researchers do not explore volatility in temperatures nearly as much as they explore linear trends, and volatility of time series tends to remain a topic for financial engineers and analysts, which is where many of the time series analysis techniques were developed.

So I’m not ready to say that global warming is ended because we’re seeing a drop, nor am I ready to say that it’s going to proceed and this year is just an anomaly.

The economist in me realizes that we still should proceed cautiously for a number of reasons and use our resources more conservatively than we currently do. it’s not just for global warming reasons that we should continue to explore green energy - it would also mean less complicated foreign relations and allow for economic growth to be unstalled by oil price shocks, for example. Same with water use and recycling - we dont’ see it in the US where we have sufficient water supplies, but in many parts fo the world water is a key reason for conflicts to develop.

Not to mention our call to stewardship, as Christians and as a generation that hopes to pass along a better world to the next generation.

What we cannot allow global warming to do is give excuse for mandatory population control measures, nor excuse lack of accountability for public investment in green energy (the technology really isn’t ready yet and should not have been a reason to risk tax monies), nor give license for radical solutions that may cause more harm than good. Rather it should be cause to consider more efficient use of resources and re-evaluate production and energy processes.

Best post I’ve ever read on this topic on this topic in this forum.:thumbsup:

That’s good news, if it bears out, but it won’t stop the ice caps from melting.

You’re old??? when I went to school global warming hadn’t even been invented, never mind discussed!

Shhhhhhhh. Your going to get in trouble for spreading the truth. :tsktsk:

I know I will be if I tell that to my classmates in college! :slight_smile:

:thumbsup::thumbsup: Stewardship, conservation…not death to humans:)

Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record … High?

Does that mean Earth isn’t warming up?

Seems like a contradiction, doesn’t it? Remember that Sea Ice is a local phenomenon, and the heat we experienced in the US this summer (14 days in a row above 100 for St. Louis, if I remember right) was caused by a La Niña effect that was an isolated system from the currents around Antarctica - or perhaps a system connected in a very complex way. Currents - whether wind or water - are created by imbalances in temperature, so for every hot there’s a cold - we never get a constant 50 degrees around the globe (thankfully).

The surge in sea ice is likely a result of greater variation, possibly around a declining mean level of sea ice.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit