 |
Louisiana Light • 2 days | 80.56 | +0.97 | +1.22% | ||
|
Bonny Light • 2 days | 81.80 | +0.14 | +0.17% | ||
|
Opec Basket • 2 days | 83.89 | +0.49 | +0.59% | ||
|
Mars US • 27 days | 79.71 | -2.05 | -2.51% | ||
|
Gasoline • 1 hour | 2.195 | -0.089 | -3.89% |
|
Bonny Light • 2 days | 81.80 | +0.14 | +0.17% | ||
|
Girassol • 2 days | 82.56 | +0.13 | +0.16% | ||
|
Opec Basket • 2 days | 83.89 | +0.49 | +0.59% |
|
Peace Sour • 14 hours | 61.61 | +1.45 | +2.41% | ||
|
Light Sour Blend • 14 hours | 65.46 | +1.45 | +2.27% | ||
|
Syncrude Sweet Premium • 14 hours | 70.06 | +1.45 | +2.11% | ||
|
Central Alberta • 14 hours | 63.61 | +1.45 | +2.33% |
|
Eagle Ford • 2 days | 74.34 | +1.45 | +1.99% | ||
|
Oklahoma Sweet • 2 days | 74.00 | +1.25 | +1.72% | ||
|
Kansas Common • 4 days | 65.00 | -0.75 | -1.14% | ||
|
Buena Vista • 4 days | 80.98 | -0.43 | -0.53% |
Brent Breaks Back Above $80 as OPEC+ Meeting Looms
Brent broke back above $80…
Farmers Embrace Dual-Purpose Land Use with Solar Panels
Agrivoltaics, the dual use of…
New Study Shows that Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago
Figures that have recently been released by Hadcrut 4, the collaboration between the Met Office’s Hadley Research Centre and the Climatic Research Unit, describing the changes in global temperature. The results are astounding, and sure to put a spanner in the wold climate debate as reported by The Daily Mail: Global warming stopped around 16 years ago.
The data was collected from over 3,000 measuring points across both land and sea, and shows that between 1997 and August 2012, there has been no discernible difference in the average global temperature.
The data must be taken lightly, as it can be misleading. Following a particularly hot year in 2010 this same data was used to suggest that global warming was on the increase. But 2011 and 2012 have been cold years which bring the trend back down and shows that global warming has no overall aggregate effect.
Climate scientists are split over this news.
Some, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (co-authors of the study), believe that this period of level temperatures means nothing because it is far too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Related Article: Why we Need to Implement an Energy Transition - Quickly
Others, such as Professor Judith Curry, head of the climate science department at Georgia Tech University, believe that this data is proof that models being used to predict future global warming are ‘deeply flawed’.
ADVERTISEMENT
Although even Professor Jones later admitted that no one truly understood the impact of natural variables such as ocean temperature cycles or the changing output of the sun, both of which have been in warm phases in recent years.
By. Charles Kennedy of Oilprice.com
Related posts
Open57.81
Trading Vol.6.96M
Previous Vol.241.7B
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2009-02/arctic-melt-reopening-naval-frontier
Why is this so difficult to understand for the Warmists..
Once again, their models have come undone, but wait a new and improved model is on the way...
It is now called flex-modeling, available on the Home Shopping Network...
It is a pity that Oil Price Decided to run with this article. Had it been left in the realms of the Daily Mail readership, no harm would have been done because that readership will be well aware of the paper's editorial position on climate change. In the main it would have been 'pushing at an open door' and a source of amusement for the rest.
As I report in my other comment, go to skepticalscience.com for a deeper scientific analysis. By coincidence, the scientists manning that site have just had a paper published that shows how global warming has not ceased and is available to read on their web page. (They will also be publishing a direct response to the above Daily Mail article in the next day or so.
The facts are simple, really: the sun has an immense role in climate, one not often enough credited; we are merely human, live for a few decades more or less, so have no real understanding of long cycles and instead over-emphasise our significance; and finally, we like to feel we matter in the cosmos, and we do, just as much as any other bomb-throwing self-destructive species, all the way to MAE, our mutually assured ends.
Look, I MAE be wrong, but wouldn't we do better if we were more accepting of our limited abilities, at least enough so that our reach no longer exceeded our grasp?
I'm NOT saying we not have ideals to motivate us, only that we accept we're not The Rulers of the Universe now or in the likely future, the one we may have if we don't annihilate ourselves first?
This means oil prices will drop, gas and electricity will follow suit right ?
This is too important an issue not to treat it with the utmost seriousness, something the Daily Mail consistently fails to do.
Anyone who actually cares about future generations of their family is recommended to visit skepticalscience.com. This is website run by scientists and concentrates on explaining the science of climate change to the public at large. They are in the process of releasing a paper debunking the Daily Mail article and I will leave it to them to explain why you should ignore this article. They will do a more thorough response than any I am capable of.
What does need saying is that climate change will on balance do harm to the planet and the U.K. with it. It follows that articles sceptical about climate change by leading newspapers that ignore the science in order to follow a sceptical editorial line can only facilitate that harm being done. I sincerely hope that there are no plans to award titles to anyone associated with the Daily Mail.
You can read the entire exchange between the Met and Mr. Rose on the Met's site: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
Here's how it opens:
An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’
It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.
To address some of the points in the article published today:
Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.
Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.
You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below: