l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 即便是根据推动人造全球暖化歇斯底里的英国气象局和East Anglia大学的数据，过去
15年全球气温也没有上升，而是基本持平
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html
What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming
has halted
By David Rose
Last updated at 4:17 PM on 5th December 2010
* Comments (0)
* Add to My Stories
A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world
climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident
prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected
to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the
19611990 average.
World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising
trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that
about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year
observed so far - 1998.'
Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to
persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon
emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met.
Drivers and pedestrians battle through blizzards in Kent last week
Winter's icy grip: Drivers and pedestrians battle through blizzards in Kent
last week
Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate
jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico
, the Met Office was at it again.
Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before,
was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures
plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since
1996.
Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second
warmest year since current records began.
But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months
apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for
the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.
Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some,
to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for
the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
This isn't meant to be happening. Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated
by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that
temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing
CO2 in the atmosphere, and make no mistake, with the rapid industrialisation
of China and India, CO2 levels have kept on going up.
According to the IPCC and its computer models, without enormous emission
cuts the world is set to get between two and six degrees warmer during the
21st Century, with catastrophic consequences.
Last week at Cancun, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to
give £20billion immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of
warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned
that global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100, leading to
rocketing food prices and a decline in production.
A woman and girl sit under a tree on a bench in South Weald Park, Brentwood,
Essex, this week
Grip of winter: A woman and girl sit under a tree on a bench in South Weald
Park, Brentwood, Essex, this week
The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees
hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each
decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately,
it isn't.
Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures
spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the
southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the
Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been
flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.
They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to
less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have
no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.
When the Met Office issued its December 2009 preThere-diction, it was
clearly expecting an even bigger El Nino spike than happened in 1998 - one
so big that it would have dragged up the decade's average.
But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines
during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest
year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it
predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been
reduced to 14.52C.
That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office'
s own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been
less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the
trend stays flat.
Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the
Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months,
March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.
The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final
figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most
the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.
There is no dispute that the world got a little warmer over some of the 20th
Century. (Between 1940 and the early Seventies, temperatures actually fell.)
But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus' that
the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue to
disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is starting
to fray.
Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in
the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat
temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an
extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had
indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may
well have been hotter than it is now.
Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour -
a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for
much of the 20th Century warming.
Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate'
leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online
interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since
1995.
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth,
head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for
Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in
its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.
He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the
moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming
because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's
failure to explain it.
The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is
very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that
the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse? |
|
