<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

What happened to global warming

October 12 2009 at 7:32 AM

Carolyn  (Login Carolyn826)

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
 



    
This message has been edited by Carolyn826 on Oct 12, 2009 7:33 AM


 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

What happened to global warming
(Login Carolyn826)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 12 2009, 7:38 AM 

And another ...

October 6, 2009

Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era

Filed under: Antarctic, Climate Changes, Glaciers/Sea Ice, Polar

Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention?

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 20082009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 19802009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 20082009 melt season.


Figure 1. Standardized values of the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009 (adapted from Tedesco and Monaghan, 2009).

The silence surrounding this publication was deafening.

It would seem that with oft-stoked fears of a disastrous sea level rise coming this century any news that perhaps some signs may not be pointing to its imminent arrival would be greeted by a huge sigh of relief from all inhabitants of earth (not only the low-lying ones, but also the high-living ones, respectively under threat from rising seas or rising energy costs).

But not a peep.

But such is not always the caseor rather, such is not ever the case when ice melt is pushing the other end of the record scale.

For instance, below is a collection of NASA stories highlighting record high amounts of melting (or in most cases, simply higher than normal amounts in some regions) across Greenland in each of the past 3 years, as ascertained by Marco Tedesco (the lead author of the latest report on Antarctica):

NASA Researcher Finds Days of Snow Melting on the Rise in Greenland

In 2006, Greenland experienced more days of melting snow and at higher altitudes than average over the past 18 years, according to a new NASA-funded project using satellite observations.

NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High in High Places

A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S

Melting on the Greenland Ice Cap, 2008

The northern fringes of Greenlands ice sheet experienced extreme melting in 2008, according to NASA scientist Marco Tedesco and his colleagues.

And lest you think that perhaps NASA hasnt had any data on ice melt across Antarctica in past years, we give you this one:

NASA Researchers Find Snowmelt in Antarctica Creeping Inland

On the worlds coldest continent of Antarctica, the landscape is so vast and varied that only satellites can fully capture the extent of changes in the snow melting across its valleys, mountains, glaciers and ice shelves. In a new NASA study, researchers [including Marco Tedesco] using 20 years of data from space-based sensors have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarcticas largest ice shelf.

But this time around, nothing, nada, zippo from NASA when their ice melt go-to guy Marco Tedesco reports that Antarctica has set a record for the lack of surface ice melt (even more interestingly coming on the heels of a near-record low ice-melt year last summer).

So, seriously, NASA, what gives? If ice melt is an important enough topic to warrant annual updates of the goings-on across Greenland, it is not important enough to elucidate the history and recent behavior across Antarctica?

(These are not meant as rhetorical questions)

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/

 




 
 


(Login jrooth)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 12 2009, 8:47 AM 

1998 had the strongest el Nino in recorded history. And yet despite having had mostly la Nina or neutral ENSO years since then and now having both the PDO and NAO going negative, eight of the ten warmest years on record came after 1998. Indeed, by the CIMSS record, 2005 was warmer than 1998 (the CRU data set that is used for the statement that 1998 was the warmest has a data hole in the Arctic.)

I've never heard of Piers Corbyn and I'm unable to find any published research by him.

Dr. Latif's comments are being somewhat misrepresented. He's a world expert on decadal timescale cycles like the PDO and he did indeed talk about how they can temporarily mask the warming trend but he did not predict 10-20 years of upcoming cooling.


Regarding Antarctic sea ice extent - first of all unlike the Arctic the climate models all have predicted relatively little warming in the Antarctic for the present period. Furthermore, the dynamics of the sea ice in a circumpolar sea are very different from that of an enclose polar sea.

It hardly seems rational to use data that in no way contradict the predictions to try and invalidate those predictions.


[linked image]

 
 

gus.
(Login gus-mccrea)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 12 2009, 10:25 AM 

Dr. Latif's comments are being somewhat misrepresented. He's a world expert on decadal timescale cycles like the PDO and he did indeed talk about how they can temporarily mask the warming trend but he did not predict 10-20 years of upcoming cooling.

    I have decades of experience fighting uphill battles against misleading and incorrect assumptions.  The field of firearms is one of the most target-rich subjects there is when it comes to misperceptions.  So I can say from some level of experience that all of these anecdotal "record cold" stories are just killing your efforts.  Perception is everything when selling a cause, and scientific-statistical data doesn't stand a ghost of a chance against it.  If your side wasn't promoting the passage of the current monstrosity being considered by Congress, I could almost be sympathetic.  But then again, it's just a repeat of the same bad movie, so neither of us should be surprised.

gus.

 

 


 
 

webpm
(Login webpm1)

well, maybe.....

October 12 2009, 12:40 PM 

our favorite goober Al Gore figures he has milked the suckers all he figures he can get so now's a good time to just slip away as the FACTS are mounting more every day what a phony scam he is running.....


    
This message has been edited by webpm1 on Oct 12, 2009 1:02 PM


 
 
AJC
(Login ajc122)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 12 2009, 5:36 PM 

And record warms also create a problem for those whining there isn't a global climate change going on.

 
 

Carolyn
(Login Carolyn826)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 12 2009, 6:46 PM 

The bottom line is: the Court of Public Opinion has reasonable doubt ... the verdict is still out.

 




 
 
Jim
(Login Avalon99)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 12 2009, 9:11 PM 

The bottom line is: the Court of Public Opinion has reasonable doubt ... the verdict is still out.

***********************

So, scientific evidence is now subject to popular opinion?

Jim...


 
 

Carolyn
(Login Carolyn826)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 12 2009, 9:25 PM 

The studies referenced in these two articles contain scientific evidence.

 




 
 

(Login Avalon99)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 12 2009, 9:29 PM 

The studies referenced in these two articles contain scientific evidence.

*************************

No, they don't. 

Jan has spoken to these issues endlessly, with primary, peer reviewed, science.  You nutwings keep finding some obscure unvalidated shit to post as "science". 

I don't need to recreate each argument to tell you that you and your sources are full of shit.

Jim...


 
 

Carolyn
(Login Carolyn826)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 12 2009, 9:37 PM 

Your responses are predictable, but there are some for whom there is still hope.

 




 
 

gus.
(Login gus-mccrea)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 12 2009, 9:45 PM 

Your responses are predictable, but there are some for whom there is still hope.

     Please don't speak heresy, it upsets the church elders.

gus.

 


 
 

(Login gillis7)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 13 2009, 8:18 AM 

The studies referenced in these two articles contain scientific evidence.

*************************

No, they don't.

Jan has spoken to these issues endlessly, with primary, peer reviewed, science. You nutwings keep finding some obscure unvalidated shit to post as "science".

I don't need to recreate each argument to tell you that you and your sources are full of shit.

Jim...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

you have "faith" in the "Peer reviewed" scientists that jan supports

many do not
spalding then said
"I don't need to recreate each argument to tell you that you and your sources are full of shit."

so...sources (and faith in them) is crucial to the efficacy of the "science"?

you find some peer review
we'll find some peer review
nothing is settled

but as we debate

The "warming" has turned to "climate change"....(in case your peer reviews turn out to be bullshit)[otherwise....why not "switch back", stand the original ground and call it "global warming"?]

and as we debate....the peers of "warming" continue to "jump ship" and admit....one by one....that the scam is unraveling....and as they do....the left (who approved of them when they touted the party warming line)...discredit each of them

heretics will not be tolerated

Global Wormer cultists really are just like the pre-reformation catholic church

"only we" [our approved priests/scientists]can interpret (or collect ) the data [the gospel]
"heretics " will be ex-communicated
everything (no matter how ridiculous )that supports us will be allowed into the discussion as evidence
everything that doesn't support us (no matter how reasoned) will be rejected and condemned as "not true "science" and their proposers along with it.
we can give local examples to "prove" our side
but your local examples are not "global"
we can give weather as evidence of warming
but then opponents cannot use weather as evidence because it is not "climate"


so contrived
so geared toward political agenda
so supportive of socialistic "solutions"

even in the face of history , which repeatedly demonstrates the failure of marxist/socialist attempts at raising the poor from poverty and allowing nations to afford "environmental policy"


the cult will not be opposed

all comers rejected and discredited (excommunicated)

[oh, the irony of the left, the enemy of (western) religion becoming the model of catholic heirarchy]
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha








    
This message has been edited by gillis7 on Oct 13, 2009 8:21 AM
This message has been edited by gillis7 on Oct 13, 2009 8:18 AM


 
 


(Login jrooth)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 13 2009, 8:32 AM 

Peer review isn't perfect, but it properly lends more confidence to results because multiple independent (anonymous) experts have examined the work.

As for this:

and as we debate....the peers of "warming" continue to "jump ship" and admit....one by one....that the scam is unraveling...

only in your fevered imagination, gillis. In the real world, the case is enormously strong and continues to get stronger.


[linked image]

 
 

(Login gillis7)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 13 2009, 8:39 AM 

and as we debate....the peers of "warming" continue to "jump ship" and admit....one by one....that the scam is unraveling...

only in your fevered imagination, gillis. In the real world, the case is enormously strong and continues to get stronger.


*******************


so you wil go back to the original title "global Warming "?

and abandon the retreat to "climate change"?

you will stand on the "enormously strong case" by calling it what you claim it is?


    
This message has been edited by gillis7 on Oct 13, 2009 8:55 AM


 
 

(Login gillis7)

What Happened to Global Warming?

October 13 2009, 8:43 AM 

What Happened to Global Warming?
Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, October 13, 2009

"What happened to global warming?" read the headline -- on BBC News on Oct. 9, no less. Consider it a cataclysmic event: Mainstream news organizations have begun reporting on scientific research that suggests that global warming may not be caused by man and may not be as dire and eminent as alarmists suggest.

Indeed, as the BBC's climate correspondent Paul Hudson reported, the warmest year recorded globally "was not in 2008 or 2007, but 1998." It's true, he continued, "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."



At a London conference later this month, Hudson reported, solar scientist Piers Corbyn will present evidence that solar-charged particles have a big impact on global temperatures.

Western Washington University geologist Don J. Easterbrook presented research last year that suggests that the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) caused warmer temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s. With Pacific sea surface temperatures cooling, Easterbrook expects 30 years of global cooling.

EPA analyst Alan Carlin -- an MIT-trained economist with a degree in physics -- referred to "solar variability" and Easterbrook's work in a document that warned that politics had prompted the EPA and other countries to pay "too little attention to the science of global warming" as partisans ignored the lack of global warming over the last 10 years. At first, the EPA buried the paper, then it permitted Carlin to post it on his personal Web site.

In May, Fortune reported on the testimony of University of Alabama-Huntsville Earth System Science Center Director John Christy's before the House Ways and Means Committee. Christy is a 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report signatory who believes human effects have a warming influence, but rejects the disaster scenarios.

As Christy told the committee, climate models rely on land temperature data that are distorted and exaggerated by surface development -- that is, asphalt and buildings. In a nice bit of research, Christy, who is also the Alabama state climatologist, debunked the temperature-increase predictions made by NASA scientist James Hansen in 1988. "The real atmosphere," Christy testified, "has many ways to respond to the changes that the extra CO2 is forcing upon it."

Add Christy, Easterbrook and Corbyn to the long list of scientists who see climate as a complex issue rather than an opportunity to sermonize and lecture the general public.

Over the years, global warming alarmists have sought to stifle debate by arguing that there was no debate. They bullied dissenters and ex-communicated non-believers from their panels. In the name of science, disciples made it a virtue to not recognize the existence of scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen and Colorado State University's William Gray.

For a long time, that approach worked. But after 11 years without record temperatures that had the seas spilling over the Statue of Liberty's toes, they are going to have to change tactics.

They're going to have to rely on real data, not failed models, scare stories and the Big Lie that everyone who counts agrees with them.


Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 
 


(Login jrooth)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 13 2009, 9:38 AM 

so you wil go back to the original title "global Warming "?

I don't recall changing - I may have used the term "climate change" but habitually I say "global warming." But so what? They refer to the same process and nobody but you denialists are confused or concerned about that.



[linked image]

 
 


(Login jrooth)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 13 2009, 9:48 AM 

Add Christy, Easterbrook and Corbyn to the long list of scientists who see climate as a complex issue rather than an opportunity to sermonize and lecture the general public.

Christy and Easterbrook haven't changed their positions at all - they still consider this a real and serious issue. I have no idea bout Corbyn - as I said I've never heard of him and I can't turn up a single piece of published research by him so I don't know what to think of him.

This is your evidence of people "jumping ship?" LOL!!


[linked image]

 
 
Riela
(Login riela)

We can only hope

October 13 2009, 1:09 PM 

that Earth's systems degrade linearly and the frog wakes up and realizes he's in a pan of increasingly warmer water. If we get a positive feedback loop of say, the oceans or tundras belching the massive quantities of CO2 they contain we could end up with a more devastating series of consequences. Relocation of millions of Americans is the inevitable future.....

 
 

(Login gillis7)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 13 2009, 10:26 PM 

Relocation of millions of Americans is the inevitable future...

THAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE EXTREME INFLATION OF CURRENCY WITH MASSIVE OVER PRINTING ANYWAY

 
 
Janie
(Login pphhrogg)

INCORRECT

October 14 2009, 4:05 PM 

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

I stopped reading right there, since it isn't correct.

2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

This year will be Britain's warmest since records began, say scientists
December 14, 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/14/weather.topstories3

NASA: 2007 Second Warmest Year Ever, with Record Warmth Likely by 2010

http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/nasa-hansen-2007-second-warmest-year-ever-warmest-year-likely-by-2010/

2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

2005 was the warmest year on record

http://www.wunderground.com/education/2005warmest.asp

2008 to be in top 10 warmest years say forecasters

http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0314515220080103?sp=true

Climate Experts Worry as 2006 Is Hottest Year on Record in U.S.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html

1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html





 
 
fisconsoclib
(Login fisconsoclib)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 14 2009, 4:23 PM 

We will probably be asked this question again in about five years from now, with Alaska completely melted.

 
 


(Login jrooth)

Re: What happened to global warming

October 14 2009, 4:29 PM 

1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA

Not in the Unites States, no. But globally, one data set still says 1998 was the warmest year so far. Another data set (which has better coverage of the Arctic) says 2005 was the warmest with 1998 second warmest.

At any rate, it's well understood why 1998 was such an anomalously warm year - the strongest el Nino in recorded history. It's simply false to claim that the warming trend ended in 1998.


[linked image]

 
 

webpm
(Login webpm1)

oh Janie....

October 14 2009, 4:32 PM 

Once again, those facts and details that libs just hate (they prefer to cherry pick to support their latest propaganda) and lost in all your posts are these little gems:

Lost in many of the headlines, however, was this quote from the report's lead researcher, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies: "We couldn't say with 100 percent certainty that it's the warmest year, but I'm reasonably confident that it was."

and

In fact the NOAA analysis yielded two results: One data set, in use since the late 1990s, found that 2005 was slightly cooler than 1998, with 2005 being 1.04 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1880-2004 average, while 1998 was 1.12 degrees above that norm.

and then:

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.


 
 

(Login gillis7)

fiscon

October 14 2009, 5:13 PM 

We will probably be asked this question again in about five years from now, with Alaska completely melted.


**************

weather is not climate

local is not global

 
 
Current Topic - What happened to global warming  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Meet The Members Links

Powered by WebRing®.