Met Office Responds to Mail Article!

As most of you know, the DailyMail had an article stating the Met Office had said that the globe has stopped warming since 1997.  And, it also essentially said, “It’s the sun!  Stupid!”  To use U.S. campaign rhetoric. 

image

Well, the Met office has disputed this.  Basically stating that they said no such thing.  And that we shouldn’t believe our lying eyes!  Instead, we should listen to their babbling rationalizations. 

Well, not being one who wishes to be accused of misquoting our friends as the Met Office, I’ll quote them verbatim.

For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “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.

“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.

“However, 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. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record  for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

So, they are insisting that the warming continued unabated during the decade 2000-2009.

image

Heh, heh, lol……… lmao…….rotflmao………rotflmaopmp!!!!!

Yes, that’s way different.  We’re hotting right on up there.  For those who are curious, the 10yr. slope = 0.00165189°C/yr.  I haven’t a clue what Mr. Rose was thinking when he said there hasn’t been any warming since 1997.  Clearly, he overlooked the 16/10,000ths of a degree. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Met Office Responds to Mail Article!

  1. gator69 says:

    “… decade of 2000-2009…”

    So what about 2010 and 2011? Do they own a calendar? Can they read it? Are we cherry picking again? 😉

  2. Latitude says:

    Gavin was going on and on about CO2 levels in Antarctica over on Steve’s…
    …about how CO2 levels do not flux seasonally
    How stupid, atmospheric and ocean currents keep that island isolated, there’s no mixing going on….

    Which got me to thinking!
    Quick quiz…….it’s said that CO2 levels dropping caused the ice in Antarctica.

    What caused Antarctica to ice over? (it’s a trick question….remember I said chemistry is easy….math is harder…..biology is the hardest)

    • suyts says:

      lol, which one is Gavin? And, I hate chemistry!!!

    • suyts says:

      oh BTW, you’re going to want to check out my new post…….

    • Latitude says:

      …the evolution of C4’s caused ice to form in Antarctica

    • Kevin O'Neill says:

      “How stupid, atmospheric and ocean currents keep that island isolated, there’s no mixing going on….”

      At what point do facts actually enter into the conversation? You SAY atmospheric and ocean currents keep Antarctica isolated? Then why does Anatarctica show the same background levels as Mauna Loa – but minus the oscillations? It ‘sees’ only the well-mixed atmosphere, as opposed to your “there’s no mixing going on…”

      All one has to do is view CO2 levels from various stations and keep in mind their latitude. If the CO2 is primarily from NH landmass seasonal sources (Dikram’s hypothesis and the commonly accepted scientific view), then we should see large seasonal oscillations in NH measurements and smaller oscillations the further south one looks. This is EXACTLY what we see.

      Samoa is, like Hawaii, an island in the Pacific. Yet CO2 measurements there show almost no seasonal oscillation. The difference is 33 degrees of latitude. Someone mentioned ice as the difference – Antarctica having plenty of it. Well, so does Pt Barrow – and it shows LARGER seasonal oscillations than Mauna Loa.

      You’re all a bunch of clueless clowns.

      • suyts says:

        Well, nice to hear from you too, Kevin….. are you sure you’re on the correct thread? Or even the correct blog? That is an interesting graphic. Tell me, what is the growing season in Hawaii? Further, Point Barrow has only seasonal ice. Hey, guess when CO2 is at it’s lowest at Pt. Barrow? In august, when there’s no ice. When the water is cool and intakes CO2……. but, speaking of clueless clowns, you’re making a wrong comparison. Hawaii and Samoa, sure, let’s look into that. The South pole shows exactly what I expect and posited. But, comparing Pt. Barrow to the South pole is an apples to oranges comparison.

      • suyts says:

        I’m curious. Are you suggesting that the Oceans don’t seasonally out-gas CO2?

  3. Kevin O'Neill says:

    I’m curious, what physical explanation *other* than the commonly accepted one explains all the data?

    Oceans do not outgas CO2 seasonally per se. They outgas based on SST. While there is some correlation to seasonality and SST, it is a very weak correlation in the SH. This is as we’d expect, the oceans have massive volume and to move their temperature is very difficult. In comparison to the CO2 measurements from PtBarrow, Samoa, Hawaii, and the S.Pole, the SH ocean SSTs simply can’t account for the seasonal CO2 amplitude variations seen.

    The accepted science is correct.

    • suyts says:

      So, you’re saying our seasons don’t much effect the SSTs? Yes, the seasonal correlation to SST’s in the SH is a bit weaker than the NH. ENSO being the wildcard. So what? You’ve just stated what I’ve stated. “They outgas based on SST.”

      Seasonal discussions are general discussion and aren’t specific because seasonal variations. We can have cool summers and warm winters. This occurs in both the SH and the NH.

      Kevin, you’re arguing against the wrong person. If you check my statements at Steve’s, you’ll see where I acknowledge also the seasonal variations due to flora intake and lack thereof. I just didn’t think it worthwhile spelling it out. But, the fact remains that most of this globe is ocean. As you stated, the out gassing is related to SSTs. Regardless of your opinions, most people understand that our SSTs are seasonally effected in both hemispheres. This isn’t a hard concept. What’s the problem with acknowledging that much of our atmospheric CO2 comes from the oceans?

      • Kevin O'Neill says:

        I’ve never said that most of the CO2 comes from anywhere other than the oceans. I totally agree that oceans absorb and outgas the majority of atmospheric CO2. If I’ve given any other impression it was unintentional.

        What I’ve said is that the seasonal oscillations evident in CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa are *not* due to ocean outgassing. If they were, then Samoa wouldn’t look the way it does. Nor would Antarctica.

        The seasonal oscillations are due to the CO2 source (of the oscillations) being in the NH. I’ve presented evidence as to why this has to be the case.

      • suyts says:

        This is nice. We can find agreements. And, yes, apparently, I wasn’t understanding what your point of contention was.

        I would still quibble about your views on some of this, but I don’t believe either is very important. However, you should look at where Mauna is positioned and why. It is there because of the winds. The concern was more for the volcanic activity, but the same would apply for the flora.

        The Antarctic, today, is a vast wasteland. Because of the lack of the oceans or biota, we shouldn’t see much seasonal difference in CO2 at the south pole. What would be interesting is to see the variations in relation to the ozone oscillation. But, this causes more questions than answers…. no one is interested in that anymore.

        Kevin, I want to thank you for clarifying your thoughts to me. If you believe what I’ve characterized as “quibbles” is incorrect, feel free to express why you believe they are important. That stated, the differences in the Samoa variations and Mauna variations should be explored.

        When you state, “The seasonal oscillations are due to the CO2 source (of the oscillations) being in the NH. I’ve presented evidence as to why this has to be the case.” I’m still not sure what you are stating. Of course they are due to the source. Now, define the source. Or, sources. Obviously, none of this is difficult. But, it leads to a harder question……. give each proper weight.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s