What happened to global warming?

Cassin

Senior Member
Reaction score
78
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 â€￾
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/s ... 299079.stm

Published: 2009/10/09 15:22:46 GMT

© BBC MMIX
 

BungleBungle

Member
Reaction score
0
This is very unusual for a BBC article, in that it is frankly giving a voice to the hysterical extremities of climate science. Piers Corbyn is a man with a history. He is a very bizarre man, and is considered by the British media as an eccentric quack (he refuses to have his predications quoted by newspapers without his consent about the exact sections quoted. This isn't a matter of context: it's about not impacting the money he makes on long-range weather betting).


The vast, vast majority of climate scientist agree on the general truth of the impact of anthropogenic global warming. I know of not one respected climate scientists (by which I mean publish peer-reviewed articles) who disagrees with this general position.

I have zero issues with people going against the grain (that's the very bedrock of scientific progress). I do with people whose interests in dissent are monetary.

If you disagree with the basis of anthropogenic global warming, that's fine. Tell me why. The majority of non-scientists I know who disagree do so because they can't stand the fact that the hippies were right (even if those hippies were also not based in any scientific knowledge: luckily for them, their guesses were latterly scientifically confirmed)
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.


nothing new here I think.....this is the kind of selective science the sceptics have been annoying us with for the last x amount of years.

I thought the 'solar energy' theory was dealt with ages ago? (the warming was happening quicker during the night?)
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
BungleBungle said:
If you disagree with the basis of anthropogenic global warming, that's fine. Tell me why.

I don't really have an opinion on it myself, but what if I _did_ disagree with the basis of anthropogenic global warming, and say that it was based on the BBC News article above? What would be your response?
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
Cassin said:
"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

"Hotting up"?? WTF?! Is that another of those weird Britishisms? :)
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
were you an english teacher is a previous life Bryan?



Shame on the beeb for printing this bollocks.
 

oni

Senior Member
Reaction score
0
were you an english teacher is a previous life Bryan?

No......................he teaches tennis and American.........................
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
oni said:
were you an english teacher is a previous life Bryan?

No.............he teaches tennis...

I can see that somebody has done some Googling on my name! :)
 

BungleBungle

Member
Reaction score
0
Bryan said:
BungleBungle said:
If you disagree with the basis of anthropogenic global warming, that's fine. Tell me why.

I don't really have an opinion on it myself, but what if I _did_ disagree with the basis of anthropogenic global warming, and say that it was based on the BBC News article above? What would be your response?


I'd say pick up a copy of Nature or National Geographic, and not base your thoughts on one very odd, very non-BBC article.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Cassin said:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/MyStory.htm

"Global temperatures have been falling for ten years, yet CO2 is rising as steadily as ever"

the sceptics keep rolling out that tired line....it's been addressed to death by the climate scientists
The blogosphere (and not only that) has been full of the “global warming is taking a break†meme lately. Although we have discussed this topic repeatedly, it is perhaps worthwhile reiterating two key points about the alleged pause here.

(1) This discussion focuses on just a short time period – starting 1998 or later – covering at most 11 years. Even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this period) a flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996). That simply is due to the fact that short-term natural variability has a similar magnitude (i.e. ~0.2 ºC) and can thus compensate for the anthropogenic effects. Of course, the warming trend keeps going up whilst natural variability just oscillates irregularly up and down, so over longer periods the warming trend wins and natural variability cancels out.

(2) It is highly questionable whether this “pause†is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.

GISStrends.jpg


Figure 1. Global temperature according to NASA GISS data since 1980. The red line shows annual data, the larger red square a preliminary value for 2009, based on January-August. The green line shows the 25-year linear trend (0.19 ºC per decade). The blue lines show the two most recent ten-year trends (0.18 ºC per decade for 1998-2007, 0.19 ºC per decade for 1999-2008) and illustrate that these recent decadal trends are entirely consistent with the long-term trend and IPCC predictions. Even the highly “cherry-picked†11-year period starting with the warm 1998 and ending with the cold 2008 still shows a warming trend of 0.11 ºC per decade (which may surprise some lay people who tend to connect the end points, rather than include all ten data points into a proper trend calculation).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... #more-1265


^^^^ probably the best climate change blog out there
 
Reaction score
0
Most scientists are bought and paid for, global warming science is bunk. Nobody in the right mind agrees or wants humans to continue polluting the atmosphere, but that does not mean we have caused the planet to heat up. Even the polar ice caps have not melted any more, it's just hysteria....hell, there are natural carbon craters under the sea that pump out more carbon from the earth naturally than humans produce...

And, the polar bears are not dying, there are more polar bears now than a decade ago, I don't get too much in to the science behind it, especially since much of it is pseudo science, but the carbon trading is going to be a $120 billion dollar industry, that's a lot of money at stake, and we've hit a point of whether it's true or not is not important any more, it's all about the de niro's, who cares what the masses think....they will just be manipulated and made to feel guilty about carbon footprints etc etc....although it's corporations that are the big environmental abuses.

I'm a big sceptic about the global warming scam, but I support renewable energies and living in harmony with the environment.
 

BungleBungle

Member
Reaction score
0
Leon S Habsburg said:
Most scientists are bought and paid for.


Having working in several universities in quaternary studies, I can assure you that's not true. 99% of climate scientists gain zero funding from their research verifying anthropogenic global warming. Can I remind you that the world is bigger than the US? The petty politics of the US do not impact UK, German, Japanese, Australian, or French universities, where 90% of current climate science is researched.

In fact, the way to make money in climate science is to release a bunk book attacking the majority of climate science, as Fox will push it to number 1 in the best seller lists. If a climate scientist produce research that smashed a hole through consensus every top university in the world would want them. They would be research funding gold. Strangely, this hasn't happened.....

I know you cannot be basing your opinions on the science, as I know the science, and it cannot be bent to support that view. Therefore you can only be basing your opinions on ideology. Why do you prefer ideology to cold, hard, fact based science?
 

ali777

Senior Member
Reaction score
4
Leon S Habsburg said:
Most scientists are bought and paid for, global warming science is bunk.

I have worked at a university as well. I can tell you that "funding" is the number one goal for any researcher. I have seen countless number of young academics who desperately seek funding so that they can continue their studies, or afford the newest lab equipment. Without funding there is no research, education, science, etc.

However, there are procedures in place to ensure the standards of research are upheld, ie research results must pass a peer review process. The peer review process has its weaknesses, the reviewer doesn't necessarily know if the results are fabricated or not, sometimes wrong results can be cleverly disguised as good results. That's why all published results must be reproducible. There are instances where consequent experiments by other scientist do not reproduce similar data and the initial research may be retracted (it happens very rarely).

Also, the way research is done in the EU is very different than the American way of doing it. In the US, most of research is privately funded and there might be more temptation to fabricate results to please the sponsors, but in the EU most of the research is financed by the EU research grants and the researchers are not accountable to profit making institutions.
 

ali777

Senior Member
Reaction score
4
On the original subject:

Global warming or not, we must make sure we cut down pollution. We can't continue polluting the world and expect the nature to be the same forever.
 

HughJass

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Leon S Habsburg said:
I don't get too much in to the science behind it, especially since much of it is pseudo science


do you see the problem with that sentence Leon?
 
Top