Slashdot Mirror

No, the data is NOT available. In the top of that page is the massaged results. Further down the page there is link to the HadCrut Met office data - but the link (this one) is dead. You cannot down the raw data, you can only get the data after it's processed. Go check.

Easy. 'Hockey stick data' is at https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/... You will find raw station data at https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/h...

Like Geoffrey said, all the data is available. Your lack of searching doesn't mean it isn't there.

Be sure to physically check those stations to make sure they are not in a carpark next to a running vehicle like the one reporting record breaking temperatures in Scotland.

In reality, someone did an analysis of the records, taking out those places that are now near a carpark, etc., and restricting the measurements just to rural areas. The result was an increase in the global warming trend (although my a tiny amount). This is what is called a sensitivity analysis, and shows the trend is not particularly sensitive to whether the stations are in urban areas or not. Obviously the temporary output from a car exhaust is another matter, but extreme outliers that do not match close stations are examined, or often automatically excluded.

Citations by many weather stations around the world

Be sure to physically check those stations to make sure they are not in a carpark next to a running vehicle like the one reporting record breaking temperatures in Scotland.

Unfortunately in this particular instance we have evidence that a stationary vehicle with its engine running was parked too close to the observing enclosure and the Stevenson screen housing the thermometers during the afternoon of 28th June. Although the measurement appears plausible given the weather conditions that day we cannot rule-out the potential for contamination of the measurement by this non-weather-related factor.

Have to love the Although the measurement appears plausible line, no observational bias there.

Another msmash abortion of an article about doom and gloom that probably won't happen.

And yet it melts...

When the data is invalid, yes - it should be thrown out. What is the accuracy of those measurements? We're always shown accuracy to 0.01 deg or 0.001 deg. Yet the underlying instruments tend to be no more than 0.5 deg accurate. Yes, you can average a bunch of measurements together to get an average value. No, you CANNOT improve the precision of that instrument over what it originally said. So average a dozen measurements, you might be able to say the average is 12.322 deg C; but the tolerance is still 0.5 deg C, meaning the actual value is 11.822 deg C to 12.822 deg C. Kind of changes things when a hundredth - or thousandth - of a degree difference is claimed to make something the "hottest on record"...

The Met, UK's official weather forecasters, state the accuracy of a Stevenson screen is +/- 0.5 deg C. Now, can you explain how you can accurately measure to a higher precision than that? I know, average a lot of screens. Yet each screen is NOT measuring the same thing (they are not co-located nor is the data collected at the same time). It is not valid to add two screens - measuring different weather situations at different times - and claim the resulting accuracy is twice as good. The data still have a half a degree accuracy. Yet we're told that a hundredth of a degree here or there makes something the hottest - or coldest - on record. It's not statistically valid - because the underlying data does not have that precision.

Ooops, my fault, I calculated in my head and got it wrong.
Anyway, it was not that hot ... at least not in the UK, hottest day way 38.5 degrees C 10 August 2003.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/l...

So the mountains of scientific evidence and the confirmation by every major climate institution on the planet, and every major scientific organisation are all meaningless to you - but the science-free claims in a youtube video by a TV personality with no experience or credentials in climatology convinced you completely?

Sorry, I can't help anyone so doggedly determined to ignore all the inconvenient parts of reality.

If you're after some raw data, the UK's Met Office makes available historic data from its stations, many of which are ~100y old and in the middle of nowhere just as much now as when they were first installed. e.g. Braemar in the Scottish highlands.

The satellite record pretty much agrees with Cruz, hasn't been any statistically significant warming (as in temperature) for over 18 years in the satellite data. USCRN hasn't shown any significant warming either; HADCRUT, GISTEMP, BEST and USHCN show some warming.

...accuracy is unknown, but probably exaggerated. The study doesn't claim what you think it claims.

Says the guy who never even looked at it. You want numbers; where are the numbers backing your claims? Only got blog pages to "cite"?

no one who uses the IPCC reports as primary support can find anything in there.

Here are a handful of the many studies I found with 10 minutes of browsing through IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2.6:

Heatwaves
Donal et al 2013: Updated analyses of temperature and precipitation extreme indices since the beginning of the twentieth century
Choi, G., et al., 2009: Changes in means and extreme events of temperature and precipitation in the Asia Pacific Network region

Precipitation
Allan, R. P., and B. J. Soden, 2008: Atmospheric warming and the amplification of precipitation extremes
Pryor, S. C., J. A. Howe, and K. E. Kunkel, 2009: How spatially coherent and statistically robust are temporal changes in extreme precipitation in the contiguous USA?

There are many more, on many areas. E.g. intense tropical storm frequency? Try Kossin et al 2007. All the pretty graphs, tables, and citations to peer-reviewed studies you could ever want - if you can be bothered to take a look.

Claims of "obfuscation" are pure bullshit. You obviously haven't checked for yourself, because you've already decided that nothing you want to see is going to be there (and heaven forbid that new data might pop your worldview bubble!).

I doubt you should spend any time with someone who rejects radiative physics.

But I'm not one of them, so what's your problem?

Nor did I say the Twin Towers were an inside job.

And the birth certificate on the Whitehouse website IS fake. Don't take my word for it... ask anyone who has a knowledge of computer graphics download it and examine it. They'll tell you the same.

BUT -- as I have stated many times here on Slashdot -- there could be a number of perfectly legitimate reasons for that. I do not claim he was not born in America. Which is what you seem to be implying. Imagine that.

And that's where all your bullshit comes from: distortions.

As I stated before, I know you can find references. And Tamino (just as I predicted) is one of "The Usual Suspects".

However, Tamino's work does NOT refute Christy, Norris et al. 2005, or 2008. Or Christy & Spencer 2012.

And Thorne et al. 2011 says the homogenization methods used by RATPAC and similar models (the kind Tamino likes to cite) are inadequate.

I already told you, it's pointless to go there. You can look those papers up just fine if you want to, but you won't prove anything.

Oh... so many places...

First:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

Just as an interesting appetizer.

to continue:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ha...

Just so you can see where this is starting to come from...

And more:
ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/allD...

And more:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monit...

and more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

and finally:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...

Here is the thing... this shit is "estimated"... there are high levels of uncertainty at EVERY step. There is a lot of guestimation going on and that adds up.

What temperature it even was in a given year has a margin of error of AT LEAST .10 C. Probably higher. And given that the total temperature anomaly is something like .50C... you can see that they can't actually cite a specific year as being the warmest.

What they do know is that 2014 was warm. It was arguable that it was as warm as the last 5 or so hottest years since 1850... keeping in mind that uncertainty and imprecision INCREASE as we go back farther in the record. By around 1920 the imprecision is so bad it is up to whole degrees. That is... today... they're saying they know to within about .10C... but in the 1920s records and older you're looking at imprecision has high as a whole degree and larger. Its an issue with record quality, instrument quality, distribution of data collection, lack of corroborating data, etc.

You asked.

They don't know. It... "could" be the hottest year. They're certain to about 30~40 percent... based on which data sets they use. Of course... their data doesn't really go back to 1850 or so with that level of precision. So... maybe a 30 percent chance of being the hottest year in the last 20~30 years?... sounds about right.

Debunked by a blog post parroted by Bayer? No you're okay, I prefer peer reviewed papers thanks, you know, actual science.

"but here's the top link from google when I search: http://www.theguardian.com/env..."

Great. A newspaper whose assertion of a cold 2012/2013 winter is trivially disprovable by actual MET office records which show that much of the winter was spent above the already relatively warm (historically) 1982 - 2010 average:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

Even on the coldest weeks it only just barely crept below 0c reaching -2c on only two occasions at worst. The UK hasn't had a truly cold winter now since 2010. All our winters have been incredibly mild since that point. This is what an actual cold UK winter looks like:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

Here are the other recent winters:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

So you see, using the UK as a point to suggest cold winters in recent years is laughable. In 2013/14 we barely dropped below average for a single day.

Besides, your assertion on Australia isn't even correct. There are plenty of issues in Australia too, whilst it may not be on the scale of other places, there are issues. As such, it's still entirely plausible that neonicotinids are a major contributing factor, and the fact that Australia always has warm weather merely cushions the impact. To pretend it's not happening at all there is just an outright lie.

So maybe stick to actual science and data, rather than blogs and newspaper articles. You might stop looking so much like a Bayer loving shill then.

Debunked by a blog post parroted by Bayer? No you're okay, I prefer peer reviewed papers thanks, you know, actual science.

"but here's the top link from google when I search: http://www.theguardian.com/env..."

Great. A newspaper whose assertion of a cold 2012/2013 winter is trivially disprovable by actual MET office records which show that much of the winter was spent above the already relatively warm (historically) 1982 - 2010 average:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

Even on the coldest weeks it only just barely crept below 0c reaching -2c on only two occasions at worst. The UK hasn't had a truly cold winter now since 2010. All our winters have been incredibly mild since that point. This is what an actual cold UK winter looks like:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

Here are the other recent winters:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

So you see, using the UK as a point to suggest cold winters in recent years is laughable. In 2013/14 we barely dropped below average for a single day.

Besides, your assertion on Australia isn't even correct. There are plenty of issues in Australia too, whilst it may not be on the scale of other places, there are issues. As such, it's still entirely plausible that neonicotinids are a major contributing factor, and the fact that Australia always has warm weather merely cushions the impact. To pretend it's not happening at all there is just an outright lie.

So maybe stick to actual science and data, rather than blogs and newspaper articles. You might stop looking so much like a Bayer loving shill then.

Debunked by a blog post parroted by Bayer? No you're okay, I prefer peer reviewed papers thanks, you know, actual science.

"but here's the top link from google when I search: http://www.theguardian.com/env..."

Great. A newspaper whose assertion of a cold 2012/2013 winter is trivially disprovable by actual MET office records which show that much of the winter was spent above the already relatively warm (historically) 1982 - 2010 average:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

Even on the coldest weeks it only just barely crept below 0c reaching -2c on only two occasions at worst. The UK hasn't had a truly cold winter now since 2010. All our winters have been incredibly mild since that point. This is what an actual cold UK winter looks like:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

Here are the other recent winters:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

So you see, using the UK as a point to suggest cold winters in recent years is laughable. In 2013/14 we barely dropped below average for a single day.

Besides, your assertion on Australia isn't even correct. There are plenty of issues in Australia too, whilst it may not be on the scale of other places, there are issues. As such, it's still entirely plausible that neonicotinids are a major contributing factor, and the fact that Australia always has warm weather merely cushions the impact. To pretend it's not happening at all there is just an outright lie.

So maybe stick to actual science and data, rather than blogs and newspaper articles. You might stop looking so much like a Bayer loving shill then.

Debunked by a blog post parroted by Bayer? No you're okay, I prefer peer reviewed papers thanks, you know, actual science.

"but here's the top link from google when I search: http://www.theguardian.com/env..."

Great. A newspaper whose assertion of a cold 2012/2013 winter is trivially disprovable by actual MET office records which show that much of the winter was spent above the already relatively warm (historically) 1982 - 2010 average:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

Even on the coldest weeks it only just barely crept below 0c reaching -2c on only two occasions at worst. The UK hasn't had a truly cold winter now since 2010. All our winters have been incredibly mild since that point. This is what an actual cold UK winter looks like:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

Here are the other recent winters:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

So you see, using the UK as a point to suggest cold winters in recent years is laughable. In 2013/14 we barely dropped below average for a single day.

Besides, your assertion on Australia isn't even correct. There are plenty of issues in Australia too, whilst it may not be on the scale of other places, there are issues. As such, it's still entirely plausible that neonicotinids are a major contributing factor, and the fact that Australia always has warm weather merely cushions the impact. To pretend it's not happening at all there is just an outright lie.

So maybe stick to actual science and data, rather than blogs and newspaper articles. You might stop looking so much like a Bayer loving shill then.

Debunked by a blog post parroted by Bayer? No you're okay, I prefer peer reviewed papers thanks, you know, actual science.

"but here's the top link from google when I search: http://www.theguardian.com/env..."

Great. A newspaper whose assertion of a cold 2012/2013 winter is trivially disprovable by actual MET office records which show that much of the winter was spent above the already relatively warm (historically) 1982 - 2010 average:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

Even on the coldest weeks it only just barely crept below 0c reaching -2c on only two occasions at worst. The UK hasn't had a truly cold winter now since 2010. All our winters have been incredibly mild since that point. This is what an actual cold UK winter looks like:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

Here are the other recent winters:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl...

So you see, using the UK as a point to suggest cold winters in recent years is laughable. In 2013/14 we barely dropped below average for a single day.

Besides, your assertion on Australia isn't even correct. There are plenty of issues in Australia too, whilst it may not be on the scale of other places, there are issues. As such, it's still entirely plausible that neonicotinids are a major contributing factor, and the fact that Australia always has warm weather merely cushions the impact. To pretend it's not happening at all there is just an outright lie.

So maybe stick to actual science and data, rather than blogs and newspaper articles. You might stop looking so much like a Bayer loving shill then.

According to that map, the UK was 1-2 degrees warmer than normal, and much of northern Europe was 2-4 degrees warmer than normal. Yet, news reports state the UK's summer was one of the coldest in decades, 5-6 degrees C colder than normal, the end of 2014 was also exceptionally cold, and while Feb 2014 was slightly above average, during the 2004 to 2014 period, it was only 0.4 degrees higher than the 1860's average for the period from 2005 to 2014, which at 5.2 degrees is also the exact same as the February average for 2014 only.
How does a slight, less than one degree warming over 150 years for one month counteract the 5-6 degree colder summer and "bitterly cold" end of the year?

I stand by my assertion that something is seriously wrong with how we measure average global temperatures.

http://www.scientificamerican....

Don't be dumb.

Don't be a tool,

... last year "was not even close to be[ing] the warmest on record" according to data compiled by the two top satellite climate data sets: the Remote Sensing System (RSS) satellite data, which measure the lowest few miles of the earth's atmosphere, and data compiled by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).
ast year "was third-warmest, but barely," said UAH climate scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy.

The year 2014 "was warm, but not special. The 0.01 degree Celsius difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero," Christy said.

Christy said that between 2002 and 2014, temperatures have warmed at a "statistically insignificant" rate of 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade.
RSS and UAH satellite data show there has been no global warming for more than 18 years. This period, which began in October 1996 and lasted for all of 2014, is referred to as "the Great Pause. Satellite Data: 2014 'Not Even Close' to Warmest Year

If you don't like satellite data,

The HadCRUT4 dataset (compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) shows last year was 0.56C (±0.1C*) above the long-term (1961-1990) average.

Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest. 26 January 2015 - Provisional full-year global mean temperature figures show 2014 was one of the warmest years in a record dating back to 1850

and as far as the 18 years without warming,

[T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] C per decade)which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade.
IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW

even the IPCC AR5 agrees.

...it was the warmest year in the CET (Central England Temperature) record, which goes back to 1659.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ha...

Been to Wales? You'd be lucky to get 10% in the summer!

But seriously, based on a quick stab at the numbers from the met office you get 1700 hours a year in the sunniest parts of Wales and 1200 in the least sunny. That's between 13% and 20% across the whole year. So less than 15% in the Winter seems pretty likely.

Ho hum. Some actual data:

Mean Central England Temperature Annual Anomalies, 1772 to 8th November 2014

Global-average temperature records (Global average temperature anomaly 1850 - 2012) One data set from a part of the UK, and one a global data set. The last few years are interesting in the UK set, and the trend in the global set is clear. By the way, note the ".gov.uk" moniker. This is an official UK government organisation, independent of party politics.

Ho hum. Some actual data:

Mean Central England Temperature Annual Anomalies, 1772 to 8th November 2014

Global-average temperature records (Global average temperature anomaly 1850 - 2012) One data set from a part of the UK, and one a global data set. The last few years are interesting in the UK set, and the trend in the global set is clear. By the way, note the ".gov.uk" moniker. This is an official UK government organisation, independent of party politics.

UK weather forecasts have become much more accurate over the last few decades as the computers that do the forecasting have become more powerful. This new machine will continue that trend.

For many years we have verified our forecasts by comparing forecasts of mean sea-level pressure with subsequent model analyses of mean sea-level pressure. These comparisons are made over an area covering the North Atlantic; most of western Europe, and north-eastern parts of North America. From this long-term comparison an average forecast error can be calculated.

The graph shows how many days into a forecast period this average error is reached compared to a baseline in 1980. This graph shows that a three-day forecast today is more accurate than a one-day forecast in 1980.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/7/2/capIndPlot-600.jpg

They're just facts, ma'am. Pity if you find them as "grasping".

If all the Euro countries has been as nuclear-dependent as France, the heat wave of 2003 would have been an even greater disaster and there would have been a fuckton of coal power needed as many of the hydro plants were also underperforming. The UK had a water shortage and Serbia saw the Danube drop to its lowest level in a century. On the upside, tanks & bombs that had been submerged since WW2 were rediscovered.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ed...

"This would be true of almost any heat engine-based power plant, regardless of the source of the heating, save for a few very high-temperature systems which can live with air cooling" AND "we know how to bridge those temporary loss gaps with hydro, fossil and other dispatchable short-term backup technology"
Erm, when it's too hot to get enough water for cooling & the water levels are low enough to restrict hydropower & this would affect any "heat-engine based power plant", exactly what are you using as your "dispatchable short-term backup technology" to produce electricity?
If you're down 20% and can't import, you're looking at rolling blackouts as a best-case scenario.

Now the intermittency of solar & wind are well-known and in the case of sunshine, it's highly predictable. And it looks like some countries have done a remarkable job of forecasting 24-48 hr wind production for more than 5 yrs.
This won't solve the issue of prolonged lulls, however but it's not yet a major problem.

One more thing about the French nuke industry - it's pretty much owned outright by the government yet there's very little transparency with regard to cost.
So the true price is not really known.
Do I think it's higher than any other Euro country? No, but I do think there are subsidies in place that are masking the real cost and it's significantly higher than what we're led to believe.

Bottom line is that I'm not convinced any single tech is capable of handling the electricity needs of modern nations in a rapidly warming world, not nuclear & not renewables. Barring some miracle breakthrough, we're going to keep on needing a mix.
But I would like to see coal cut back dramatically, even at great expense. And I don't support the German agenda to foreclose on nuclear plants that are in good operating condition.

Now about that French dumping.
It's unclear exactly what was being sent to Russia but my question is WHY? Why isn't this being done in France? The fact that this was being done on the sly and that they abruptly ended the program 4 years early implies that Greenpeace was on to something.
But exactly what I don't know. But if you have a program with the Russians that's shrouded in secrecy, you're lying about something.

I can only assume your problem with the "97%" meta-study result was not considering those that didn't express a position on the issue in their abstract. They weren't counted either way. But if you're expecting that considering those would move the percentage downward, other studies suggest you'd be in for a nasty shock:

http://skepticalscience.com/97...

Next, how are the graphs not of the same thing? Both compare the predictions of various models with observed temperatures. The only difference is that the one I linked to takes the observed temperatures from 3 different institutions' sensor systems, and the one you linked to takes them from 2 satellites and 4 balloons. Also the date range on yours is slightly wider in both directions.

In case you weren't looking at the right one, it's this one specifically:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

The study you linked to about overestimations basically makes the "only atmospheric warming" argument, which is what creates the illusion of "the pause." The UK's MET office has a nice page on this:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/re...

"They make a point now of not sharing the details of the models with people. That would concern you if you had any intellectual curiosity."

Well, that is bullshit of incredible intensity. Just for curiosity, who exactly told you that? You presumably won't have any injection to sharing that data with us.
In return, I will share with you this thing called Google, with which I was able quite rapidly to find:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/fms
http://mitgcm.org/public/sourc...
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools...
http://www.nemo-ocean.eu/About...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/re...
http://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/i...
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools...
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/model...
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/model...
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/model...
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/f...
http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/H...
There's more but I'm tired of cut and pasting. You would be able to find these also if you have any intellectual curiosity, but them you might have to doubt the sources of your info on how bad the climatology people are, and how they're hiding the code to conceal that out doesn't work, and that maybe the models do run and give outputs, ave before you know it the foundations of you whole world view are shaken.

I don't think "spring" has a standardized or universal definition. There is certainly no "official start of spring" or other such nonsense. I believe the National Weather Service in the US goes with March 1. Austrailia seems to agree, though obviously it is swapped with autumn down under. The UK seems to "officially" recognize both the astronomical and traditional definitions.

Too bad this wasn't linked in TFS:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

And here is the announcement of the release of that data, direct from the Met Office. Note that the date given for the release is July, 2011.

You can download the data yourself HERE, compare it to previous HadCRUT data that was available, and see what information is new in this release. If you count, you will find approximately 5,000 weather stations that weren't in previously-released data.

Met Office Announcement of new data release.

And here is the announcement of the release of that data, direct from the Met Office. Note that the date given for the release is July, 2011.

You can download the data yourself HERE, compare it to previous HadCRUT data that was available, and see what information is new in this release. If you count, you will find approximately 5,000 weather stations that weren't in previously-released data.

Met Office Announcement of new data release.

Here is that NASA data you're referring to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ [nasa.gov]
or here, comparing various data sets:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/0/h/compare_datasets_new.jpg [metoffice.gov.uk]
I would not seriously characterize this as "the earth has been cooling for the past decade." Most notably, the increase in temperature observed from the 1960s has not reversed.
Here, from the BEST project, is the comparison of theory and data:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/annual-with-forcing-small.png [berkeleyearth.org]

Dude, the data certainly does not support warming either. At 95% the data can support BOTH, you just believe ONE SIDE.

Over a time period of decades-- which is the time scale of relevance-- I see clear warming: a rise of about 0.6C in global temperature over the last 50 years. So, no, I disagree. I'd say "the data supports warming" quite clearly and unambiguously.

Here is that NASA data you're referring to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
or here, comparing various data sets:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/0/h/compare_datasets_new.jpg

I would not seriously characterize this as "the earth has been cooling for the past decade." Most notably, the increase in temperature observed from the 1960s has not reversed.

Here, from the BEST project, is the comparison of theory and data:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/annual-with-forcing-small.png

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF does argue that global warming stopped, although in 2000, not 1998.

No it doesn't. The word "stopped" does not occur in that text.

The phrase used is "The recent pause in global surface temperature rise".

You might have noticed that the press release was dealing with predictions, not the past record. If I was a serious opponent, I could try pointing out that it states "we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850," but that isn't inconsistent with global warming ending in 1998. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF does argue that global warming stopped, although in 2000, not 1998.

It's no sign to cheer:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

I'm going off of the UK's Met Office

No you're not - you're going off the Daily Fail, El Reg and the Daily Torygraph. None of those is exactly a sane source to quote on AGW.

What the Met Office actualy said:

The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011.

However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts

The "15-year pause" in global warming is bunk: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

*blink* How is it bunk? The very article you linked to acknowledged there is a pause:

Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that his is a temporary pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously. The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions:

Seriously, do you alarmists actually read the stuff you link to?

The "15-year pause" in global warming is bunk:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.

Of course, it's worth noting that those who believe in climate change can do much the same to come up with the opposite results. Regardless, you'll notice that the Daily Mail article gives you a chart that "proves" they're right, but neither offers you the Met Office's data nor gives you a link to the same. The good news is that it isn't hard to go to the Met Office's website and look at the data yourself. I think you'll find it tells a different story than the DM.

It appears that the computers that Europe was using for the "better forecast" were not as powerful as the old system being replaced. Upgrading because Europe's forecast better would be like taking a slow route to a holiday destination then buying a Porsche because your neighbours got there sooner when all you need is a new roadmap.

It doesn't matter what the level was. It only matters what the CHANGE SPEED is.

Currently temperature changes are slightly down over ten years.

To put this in the terms you can understand, it's like your car was about ro run into a wall, only accidentally you left it in neutral and it rolled backwards into a curb.

That slight bump you feel is your argument grinding to a frustrating halt, with everyone outside the car wondering just why they wanted to get on your bandwagon to begin with when you apparently can't even tell which way you are driving.

The argument against taking this ten year flat/decline into account by your fellow cultists appears to be that you are measuring over too short a period of time. Yet if we are to believe in a 4C rise by 2080, that leaves less than 65 years to proceed to 4C. Since the average rise before the start of the flat period was about0.16C per decade. Do the math; that's 1.04C in 65 years going by the only evidence of any sustained warming we actually have to go by...

What's also funny about that "your timeframe is too short to really judge" argument is all the scary looking graphs like to show temperature increases from just 1965 or so... so 10 years is WAY to short to judge, but 40 or so years is apparently OK to derive the next thousand years of climate change from. Huh.

Sorry buddy, but we aren't drinking the kool-aid from a bunch of guys who can't even pour into the cups accurately.

U.S. Remains In Cooling Trend Per The New June NOAA Data: -3.5ÂF/Century

Much to the galactic chagrin of global warming alarmists and their collaborators at the NY Times and Washington Post, a major peer reviewed study by an avowed alarmist found no global warming since 1998. This finding confirms what the skeptics have been stating over the last 5 years.

"Q: Was 2010 (or 1998 or 2005) the warmest year on record?

A: The short answer is, maybe. It is not possible to calculate the global average temperature anomaly with perfect accuracy because the underlying data contain measurement errors and because the measurements do not cover the whole globe. However, it is possible to quantify the accuracy with which we can measure the global temperature and that forms an important part of the creation of the HadCRUT4 data set. The accuracy with which we can measure the global average temperature of 2010 is around one tenth of a degree Celsius. The difference between the median estimates for 1998 and 2010 is around one hundredth of a degree, which is much less than the accuracy with which either value can be calculated. This means that we can't know for certain - based on this information alone - which was warmer. However, the difference between 2010 and 1989 is around four tenths of a degree, so we can say with a good deal of confidence that 2010 was warmer than 1989, or indeed any year prior to 1996."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/faq.html

NO "WARMING" - anthropogenic, or otherwise.

The .gif file that you link to does not clearly show the last 15 years

Are you blind? There's a black square on each year's point.

Here is a link to an image

2 links to the Daily Mail. A right wing newspaper, roughly equivalent to Fox News. This is not where you go for scientific data.

Funny that you need to redefine the term "weather" to mean a 15 year period when faced the debacle of a series of failed predictions...

There's no "redefinition". I told you about the 30 year distinction because I understand what climate means and how it differs from weather. And it appears you don't.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/

Why would we experience that warming for 1000 years? And why do you believe the rate of warming during the last warm phase of the PDO to have been unusual? (It isn't, it was the same earlier in the 20th century and during the only long term records we have, CET, we see the same rate during periods going back hundreds of years)

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

It was not CRU's data. The CRU is not running monitoring stations, or even collecting data. The data was from the World Meteorological Organization, via the UK Met Office. Neither the CRU or the Met Office magically have permission to give away that data. In fact, CRU didn't even have that data anymore.

But, nevertheless, after all this happened, the Met Office went and asked for permission to release it. And the raw data they were allowed to release (Which appears to be every station but the 19 in Poland for some reason, insert your own conspiracy theory there.) is here.

It's a real good job you did with the Google there, looking for that data. You looked real hard. Or at least read some pages that said the data hadn't been released, and isn't that really good enough?

Of course, almost all that data was already public anyway via World Monthly Surface Station Climatology and the GHCN before the Met Office released the uncorrected data. So people ran statistical sampling by comparing the CRU data to those data sources to see if the corrections introduced any sort of biases. They didn't.

But, hey, I love climate change deniers. In fact, I love all deniers. It's so much fun when they don't get memos and run around demanding that people 'release' information that was released in 2009.

You can find the data here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records

No station data has been removed, but some non-climatic adjustments have been made. Of course, if you don't trust that it was done correctly, you can always go back to the source: the national weather stations all over the world. Especially if you suspect any particular data has been tampered with, it's relatively easy to get the data from that particular weather station, and compare side by side.

Note that there are 3 global temperature anomaly records based on ground stations, plus two records based on satellite data. They all agree very well on the data. In addition, we can observe obvious changes, such as melting of Arctic ice and glaciers.

The idea that anybody could 'tweak' global temperature data, without anybody noticing, is just preposterous.

Computer says no :-(

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/se/london_forecast_wind.html