Saturday, 27 November 2010

Met Office confident of global warming

A statement by the met office has said that this year is set to be in the top two hottest years of all time.

1998 saw the hottest year on record until now. During 1998 temperatures soared because of a strong El Nino in the Pacific. This year also had an El Nino, a warming event that takes place in the Pacific, however this El Nino was quickly diminished by the forming of La Nina, a cooling event. Despite the La Nina, records this year are still hotter than that of 1998.

A spokesman from the Met Office state that this is evidence standing on the side of man-made global warming. The last decade was the hottest ever recorded.

Ahead of the latest UN talks on climate change in Cancun, Mexico, the Met Office analyses trends in climate and reveals that the evidence for man-made warming has grown even stronger in the last year.

Dr Matt Palmer, an ocean observations specialist at the Met Office, said: “It is clear from the observational evidence across a wide range of indicators that the world is warming. As well as a clear increase in air temperature observed above both the land and sea, we see observations which are all consistent with increasing greenhouse gases.”

These changes include:
Increases in water temperature at the sea surface down a depth of hundreds of metres.
An increase in humidity as a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture.
Increases in sea level as warmer waters expand and land-ice melts.
Shrinking of Arctic sea-ice, glaciers and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover.

Since the late 1970s the long-term rate of surface warming has been about 0.16 °C per decade. However, over the last decade the rate of warming has decreased.

Natural variability within the climate system could explain all of this recent decrease. Other factors could have contributed.
Changes in stratospheric water vapour
Solar variability
Increased aerosol emissions from Asia

The rate of warming has been underestimated in the last decade because of:
changes to sea-surface temperature measurement practices;
strong warming in the Arctic — where there are fewer observations.

Dr Vicky Pope said: “Our analysis confirms that the signals of warming are as strong as they ever have been. Improving our understanding of the factors that affect short- and long-term trends is helping us to improve our predictions of the future, helping others to make choices on mitigation and adaptation providing a more resilient future.”


Jonathan said...

Will that be enough to stop the climate change denialists who say there has been a period of global cooling since 1998? Or will they attack the integrity of the evidence, while their's stands up to even less scrutiny?

Adrian Windisch said...

Some are still listening.

Unfortunately many have their head buried so deep in the sand that no evidence will convince them.

Sean O'Hare said...


You charge the we sceptics have our head buried in the sand, but the same can be levied against you greenies. A hot summer in Russia and it is a clear sign of global warming, even though that is a periodic event, yet when it comes to the occurance of harsh winters in Europe and N America it's just weather. You can't have it both ways.

Adrian Windisch said...

Firstly, welcome on this site Sean. Those who deny the evidence of global warming are not really 'sceptics', they are ignoring the mounting huge pile of evidence.

If its a bit warm or cold fore a few weeks in one part of the world, that doesn't mean you ignore the rest of the world. Science takes an average from a vast amount of data, not picking it to suit its point of view.

The face that this is the warmest year despite some very cold weather means that its really been warm.

Sean O'Hare said...

Thanks for the welcome Adrian. Hope you don't regret it.

I am a retired software engineer with a background in statistical analysis, mathemetical modelling and mechanical engineering. When the CRU files were first leaked I had time on my hands so I downloaded the whole bundle and spent a lot of time going through them, concentrating on the source code of the programs themselves rather than the emails. I was shocked at the comments embedded the code, which suggested that the programmer was way out of his depth and the code itself which is badly constructed even for Fortran and amateurish to say the least.

Many sceptics have already commented on the context of the harry_readme file. The one point that doesn't seem to have been made so far is how alone this guy seems to be. He was left to make his own decisions on how to manipulate data. Why weren't the senior people looking over his shoulder and giving him guidance?

Professional sofware teams in the commercial sector use configuration management and quality assurance procedures to ensure that the data and code is always in a known state, i.e. who changed what and the reason why. It is quite obvious from this pile of dung that no such procedures were in place throughout.

I believe this overall lack of discipline is commonplace in both university research and governmental scientific establishments worldwide.

The fact that UEA/CRU together with Penn State University and NASA are the major players in climate science should therefore be a cause for serious concern to all.

How then can we place any faith in their results? If safety critical systems were constructed using similar methods there would be aircraft falling out of the sky every five minutes and ballistic missiles flying about like fireworks on Guy Fawkes night.

On the basis of the data that has so obviouly been fudged Cameron, Huhne and the EUrocrats have already this year added 10% to my gas bills, blighted the countryside with unsightly and useless windwills. They are now preparing to waste tens of billions every year redistributing our hard earned money to emerging economies. It is any wonder people are getting angry.

Adrian Windisch said...

I will get back to you on this when I have more time. For the moment read

Sean O'Hare said...


As you pointed me at an article involving the arch alarmist allow me to point you at an article by the arch denier in which he explains with a touch of humour where this is all leading.

Adrian Windisch said...

Hi Sean, what a funny link, is Delingpole a scientist? I thought he was a but a bit of an 'Al Murray pub landlord' comedy act.

Your theory on UEA sounds a bit 'troofer' to me. There are many thousand climate scientists, that would be some cover up. Include most scientific and many other institutions.

You think wind turbines are useless, but many people get energy from them.

The LabLibServatives will indeed use any excuse to put up tax, dont blame the Greens for them, we are the opposition.

Sean O'Hare said...

Hi Adrian,

No Delingpole isn't a scientist he is a media hack, but one of the few that dares to question the orthodox church of climatology. Don't forget Al Gore isn't a scientist either and he has an awful lot to say on the subject.

As you say there are many thousand scientists with an interest in climate. However, UAE and NASA are the major players. There are many climate scientists with dissenting views but you rarely if ever get to hear from them, and when you do they are quickly shouted down.

Sean O'Hare said...


Wind turbines are useless. High maintenance literally and when they aren't maintained properly this is likely to happen:

I won't comment anymore for a while as I wouldn't want you to think I'm trying to take over your blog. Maybe in a week or two if you allow. :-)

Adrian Windisch said...

Another funny link; good find.
Seems it was an old design, since improved.

Do you think other forms of power generation never fail? Of course they do.

You are welcome on here as long as you like, just keep it reasonably polite.

Science and practical experience tells us that wind generates lots of power. I thought as you had a background as a software engineer you would know this.

The future is in renewables. Its a secure supply in a world that will run out of fossil fuel and nuclear.

Sean O'Hare said...

Do you think other forms of power generation never fail? Of course they do.

Of course, sometimes catastrophically. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl spring to mind.

I don't see how my background as a software engineer has any bearing on my problem with wind turbines which is twofold.

1) They are very costly to maintain once erected. Why aren't they designed with a hinge at the bottom so that the blades can be lowered to the ground by rack and pinion for servicing?

2) They only generate electricity when the wind blows (and even then not when it blows too hard). This fundamental flaw can only be overcome when far more efficient and enviromentally friendly storage mechanisms than chemical batteries are invented. Hydro solutions such as pumping water uphill wastes most of the energy and would necessitate erecting so many wind turbines as to make their intrusion unbearable. (thinks they are becoming too intrusive already!)

I am not alone in believing that we have not yet reached peak oil and are unlikely to do so for a century or so. Yes it will get more expensive, but less so than the renewable alternative.

I share your hope that the future will be with renewables I just don't think wind turbines are the answer. Maybe there is a future for wave power, proving it doesn't decimate wildlife. However what really irritates me is this sudden rush for renewables whatever the cost which is all predicated on theunproven and very flakey science and even dodgier politics of global warming.

Adrian Windisch said...

Hi Sean, your background as a software engineer has a bearing on wind turbines.

You said before that windwills were useless. Now you have admitted that they do produce energy. Some people seem to think they produce no energy at all!

I will presume that you admit that the damaged turbine in the video was much less dangerous than 3 mile island, chernobyl, or the oil spills in Nigeria, the Gulf etc.

Some people object to renewables subsidy, but seem to have no problems with fossil fuel subsidy.

Sean O'Hare said...

I didn't suggest that wind turbines produced no electricity. That would be daft, but I do maintain that they produce insufficient and fluxuating energy levels to ever replace more than a tiny fraction of the amount of energy required to keep the country's lights on.

Using taxpayers money to subsidise energy is a socialist method of wealth redistribution. Not good in my book, but I'll live with it. Stealing from the taxpayer and the consumer to give money to the 3rd world is both immoral and insane. Developing countries continue to burn fossil fuels while the elderly here at home freeze to death because they can't afford heating. How do you feel about subsidising the nuclear weapons and space programs of India, China and Pakistan?