You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
What happened to global warming?
2009-10-11
What happened to global warming? I'd say folks are cooling to the idea.
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.
But, what about water vapor? Oh, you don't want us to know about that. OK. As long as you are explicit about that.
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?
The sun, perhaps?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
Incontrovertible proof. If you are the kind prone to drinking coolaid.
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.
And the rest comes from a liberal dose of hot air.
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.
You need to look back further than 30-40 years, I'm afraid. GW activists have claimed this "phenomenon" has been going on for longer than that.
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).
That's a pretty broad statement there, bonehead. How about the earth relation to the sun?
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.

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

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.
You mean more like sixty, I presume.
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."
Omygod, you mean there could be catastrophic, uncontrolled global cooling? Head for the hills!
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 providing an excuse for more grant money. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
Yeah, since the 1400's. Long before they had water vapor.
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?
A creative predation on apprehension in order to develop research grants to bridge to the next warming cycle?
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.
Others would say it is heating up. But this is the BBC, and the talk funny. ;-)
Posted by:gorb

#16  Nope, RJ - can't say that I have.

Guess I could put it on my list of things to read when I'm old and grey I get a chance....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-10-11 22:52  

#15  Ummm, Brbara, it's obvious you never read the BOOK, "The Butterfly Effect" not the bullshit movie, the book was pretty good.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-10-11 22:47  

#14  Good point, 'moose.

Though I wouldn't call the we're-all-gonna-die assh*le a butterfly expert - more a bullshit expert.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-10-11 18:11  

#13  Barbara: I am always careful to call him Paul "R." Ehrlich, butterfly expert, so as to never, ever confuse him with that truly great man of science, Dr. Paul Ehrlich.

For me, confusing the two is almost painful, like confusing Trofim Lysenko with Charles Darwin.

Darwin, I might add, who at extreme old age, came out of retirement to present the highest award for science at the time to Dr. Paul Ehrlich, for developing the first effective treatment for syphilis, which at the time was ravaging much of the world, causing blindness, insanity and death.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-10-11 14:20  

#12  "Global Warming indeed!"

Actually, CS, the whole thing is a total misunderstanding due to a typo many years ago, and now the usual suspects are so invested in the myth they won't can't back down.

It's really supposed to be "Gerbil Worming." :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-10-11 13:22  

#11  No warming up here on the Canuckistan prairies. We've got lots of snow on the ground and my tired old bones are telling me that it's here to stay. . . . . . about three weeks early this year.

This year's effort has produced the heaviest snowfall in Winnipeg at this time of year since 1872. Time to get the snowshoes out.

Global Warming indeed!
Posted by: Canuckistan sniper   2009-10-11 12:17  

#10  When BS meets reality.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2009-10-11 12:07  

#9  I don't know what happened to "global warming". All I know is that we got our first snow yesterday here in corn country. It didn't last long, true, but today it's only 35 at 11 am. Can't wait for winter.....bet it will be another unholy one like last year was.
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-10-11 12:00  

#8  I can't speak for anyone else, however, the last couple of years here in western Pennsylvania seem (to me) to be colder than previous years.
Posted by: WolfDog   2009-10-11 10:37  

#7  "they should be forced to endure an albatross about their individual necks for the remainder of their respective careers"

Didn't happen with Paul Erlich, 'moose. Ain't gonna happen here, either. :-(

Our so-called "news" organizations are filled with ignorant people who couldn't actually report themselves out of a wet paper bag.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-10-11 10:22  

#6  "In other words, how much of the change versus historical trends is an artifact of more accurate measurement and instrument placement?"

Most of it, tw.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-10-11 10:19  

#5  The proponents of the agenda driven efforts at both the scientific and political level should be noted, and once the scheme collapses, they should be forced to endure an albatross about their individual necks for the remainder of their respective careers.

Perhaps the way to do this is to add an abbreviation to their name in the future, such as "MMGWA" (advocate).

This can be indicative of several things. That they reached faulty conclusions based on presumption instead of method, often out of their field; that they oppressed other scientists in support of a politically-driven agenda; and that they were less concerned with good science than funding for bad science.

Most of all it implies that they are either incompetent, irresponsible, or both.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-10-11 10:11  

#4  What happened?

The Won is now in office, and is implementing phase 2 of the op plan.
Posted by: Nguard   2009-10-11 09:49  

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

The research conducted by our intelligence community came up with a NIE that said Iran wasn't working towards the Bomb(tm). How can experts be wrong? /rhet question
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-10-11 09:10  

#2  How much of the apparent heating is due to interesting placement of ground-based sensors? How does ground-based data compare to satellite data? How far back is the instrument-produced data comparable, before the instruments were less accurate than current? The cavemen weren't using mercury thermometers, after all, nor did Christopher Columbus. In other words, how much of the change versus historical trends is an artifact of more accurate measurement and instrument placement?

And yes, water vapour. Let's lay plastic wrap over the oceans and the larger lakes to prevent the evaporation that's been causing such trouble. That way we won't have to worry about increased snowfall leading to growing glaciers that would crowd us off the planet on the cooling side, as well. Win-win!
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-10-11 08:24  

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

I think it didn't. The apparent warming resulted from smoke and pollutant reductions from clean air acts and the collapse of the Soviet Union increasing minimum temperatures due to increased early morning sunlight reaching the surface.

BTW, continous and timed based temperature measurements support this interpretation.
Posted by: phil_b   2009-10-11 06:17  

00:00