land-resources.com

Update February 2012

Again, in 2010 and 2012 there was no rise in mean global temperature. The value for 2010 was almost exactly the same as for 2003 and 2005. The value for 2011 was lower than almost every year this century. There has been absolutely no 'global warming' 2002-2011.

Throughout this period of no warming, atmospheric carbon dioxide has continued its steady rise. So there is no correlation with temperature whatever.

Has global warming come to a halt?

To listen to the media, politicians, and opinion among the general public you would think 'global warming' was proceeding apace.

But look at the data. ( Source 1 Source 2) 1998 was the world's warmest year since records began in 1850, and marks the peak in a period of warming which has been going on since 1980. Every year since then, mean global temperatures have been 0.25-0.45 C above the long-term mean.

But suppose for a moment that 1998 was the first year for which data were available. What would you see (above)?

Whilst the changes are so small that we cannot be confident (statistically) that cooling has taken place, there has certainly not been any further global warming.

Check the data yourself

Don't take my word for it. Nor the word of any other 'authority'. You can check out the original data, from the CRU site. You really can! Select CRUTEM3, then GL (=global mean), and take the last column, the annual mean values. Anyone who can draw a graph can see the trend for any chosen period. Teachers, get your class to do it. Then they will have found out for themselves, and not be dependent on the pronouncement of some supposedly 'eminent' scientist.

Americans don't like taking anyone else's word for scientific matters, so you can check their indempently compiled data on the NOAA site.

What about the benefits of climatic change?

The benefits? Have you heard about these? No, because it would spoil the prevailing party line to mention them.

From a British-oriented point of view, there are obvious benefits of warmer temperature. No-one wants a repeat of the bitterly cold winters common in the nineteenth century, and occurring sporadically since. The lower fuel costs of milder winters are a considerable saving. Likewise, the public would like hot summers, for leisure and sport.

But more widely, what about drought and heatwaves (or is it storms and floods?). From the broadest viewpoint, there is no reason why changes in climate should not bring about as many benefits as losses. It is, indeed, grudgingly admitted that crop growth in the cooler temperate zone might benefit from higher temperatures, and in the North American Great Plains there is evidence of this. In some regions, even the supposedly 'desertified' sahel zone of Africa, the drought constraint to plant growth has been reduced. (Source)

July 2009, updated 2010, 2011 and February 2012

Update For the broader picture see Mike Hulme's book, Why we disagree about climate change". A highly condensed summary might be:

But read the book yourself. Notice how Hulme, from a starting point in climatology, and Young, starting from soils and land resources, arrive at the same point: the millennium goals, to reduce hunger, poverty, and environmental degradation, cannot be achieved without checking population increase.