4 ms·

But the UK Met Office agrees with the Mail article author. 'We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.

But the UK Met Office agrees with the Mail article author. 'We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.' And they correctly note - 'However, we do suggest that measurements over the longer-term are more representative of the trend in climate due to the influence of natural variability over shorter timescales.' http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-...

phaemon 14y ago
Why did you choose a quote from the comments rather than the more complete one from the article itself? "The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming."
- james1507 14y ago
  Because the quote in the comments is by the author of the article, expanding on what he said in the article?
SagelyGuru 14y ago
Man made global warming is a PR invention carefully engineered to create more taxation, trading profits in 'indulgences', and to revive the public support for the nuclear industry. Even if they persuaded you, you got to admit that these three things are the main tangible results and that they are happening. The support for the nuclear industry was seriously flagging exactly at the time when the 'global warming' suddenly started getting pushed by certain prominent VIPs and the main stream media. Now many new nuclear reactors are planned, despite Fukushima. This would never have been accepted before 'global warming'. If you are not convinced, look for example into the background of Sir John Bebbington (made into the UK's chief scientific advisor) and his pronouncements on Fukushima: 'No question, absolutely no danger whatsoever. No comparison with Chernobyl.... etc.'. Made at the time when the reactors were exploding and melting, one after another. 0.03 C per decade means that this trend would have to continue unbroken for a thousand years to achieve a noticeable warming of 3C. Use your common sense, please?
- intended 14y ago
  Yes, I mean the global scientific consensus and the historical data showing a constant climb is in reality a matter of using common sense correctly, and has nothing to do with the underlying matter being far too complex for a PHD thesis or 1 line correlations between single individuals. Its tiring to have to go through old posts and historical data to tease apart the points and show why scientists in the field of weather and climate have reached a consensus that climate change is real. As for you particular assertion that its a PR push - please realize that flagging support for the nuclear industry amongst the public at large remains and is largely independent of global warming fears. I mean, we are pushing solar, wind and renewable power around the world more than we ever have, and a LOT more than nuclear. Heck just look at the boom/bust in silicon prices a while back, the constant efforts to reach grid parity through silicon, and the massive solar farms that are being put up.

phaemon 14y ago

Why did you choose a quote from the comments rather than the more complete one from the article itself? "The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming."

james1507 14y ago
Because the quote in the comments is by the author of the article, expanding on what he said in the article?

SagelyGuru 14y ago

Man made global warming is a PR invention carefully engineered to create more taxation, trading profits in 'indulgences', and to revive the public support for the nuclear industry. Even if they persuaded you, you got to admit that these three things are the main tangible results and that they are happening. The support for the nuclear industry was seriously flagging exactly at the time when the 'global warming' suddenly started getting pushed by certain prominent VIPs and the main stream media. Now many new nuclear reactors are planned, despite Fukushima. This would never have been accepted before 'global warming'. If you are not convinced, look for example into the background of Sir John Bebbington (made into the UK's chief scientific advisor) and his pronouncements on Fukushima: 'No question, absolutely no danger whatsoever. No comparison with Chernobyl.... etc.'. Made at the time when the reactors were exploding and melting, one after another. 0.03 C per decade means that this trend would have to continue unbroken for a thousand years to achieve a noticeable warming of 3C. Use your common sense, please?

intended 14y ago
Yes, I mean the global scientific consensus and the historical data showing a constant climb is in reality a matter of using common sense correctly, and has nothing to do with the underlying matter being far too complex for a PHD thesis or 1 line correlations between single individuals. Its tiring to have to go through old posts and historical data to tease apart the points and show why scientists in the field of weather and climate have reached a consensus that climate change is real. As for you particular assertion that its a PR push - please realize that flagging support for the nuclear industry amongst the public at large remains and is largely independent of global warming fears. I mean, we are pushing solar, wind and renewable power around the world more than we ever have, and a LOT more than nuclear. Heck just look at the boom/bust in silicon prices a while back, the constant efforts to reach grid parity through silicon, and the massive solar farms that are being put up.