So what happened to global warming?
It’s not just that it’s disappeared from media headlines this year - shoved off by the credit crunch and natural disasters, for example. It can’t be ignored that 2007 came and went as another very warm year - the 7th hottest on record since 1850 according to the World Meteorological Organization.
But it wasn’t a record. In fact that was 1998, a full 10 years ago — the year of an exceptional El Nino, a Pacific weather pattern which heats the whole globe. So is global warming not living up to the hype?
Two weeks ago Leibniz Institute’s Noel Keenlyside stirred an academic hornet’s
nest by saying that we may have to wait longer - a decade or more - for another
peak year, because a natural weakening in ocean currents may be cooling sea
temperatures.
Many scientists flatly rejected the idea, saying Keenlyside had over-estimated the effect. But some pointed out that a recent switch in a weather pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation could indeed cool temperatures globally.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year recent warming was
“unequivocal” and most of it ”very likely” manmade. And almost all scientists in the latest debate, including Keenlyside, agree that any temporary cooling doesn’t alter that - blips due to natural effects are to be expected.
But how long is a blip? No-one knows.
It could be many years before there’s an El Nino as bad as 1998, scientists say. And in the meantime the doubts will grow, just as policymakers try to negotiate one of the most complex global treaties ever. A new Kyoto Protocol will affect issues of equity and poverty: in the case of poor countries the right to grow, for island states perhaps the right to exist, and for rich countries the right to compete on a level economic playing field.
Meanwhile one or two doubters are already saying the present lull in warming
casts doubt on just how far manmade greenhouse gases are influencing the climate. MIT’s Richard Lindzen reckoned that if it was as bad as all that temperatures would be rising faster.
What do you think?
Trackback
35 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
Clearly, global warming is anthropogenic (man-made). It exists mainly in the human mind and is manufactured from two sources – careless data acquisition and dubious data processing.
- Posted by Robert GMother nature continues to be the biggest denier of the global warming scam. Yes the globe is warming and has been sense the last ice age. I consider that a good thing. It’s a natural cycle and man has nothing to do with it. One thing that all of the none political scientist agree on is that the climate has always been changing. Never in the earth history has the climate stayed the same. We need to stop wasting money on the global warming scam.
It’s no farce ! Or did you say that just to get a rise ? When we are all coating ourselves with SPF morning noon and night, or bailing out our basement cause the creek keeps getting higher or having to go to Baffin island to get in a little cross country skiing I want to meet the person that said it was a farce. You aren’t the same person that said ” Peace in our Time ” were you
- Posted by ceegFirstly, the statement that 2007 was warmer than average and one of the warmest since 1850 is incorrect. The winter of 2006-2007 was warm, 2007-2008 was much colder than the average, as shown by the first snowfall in Baghdad in recorded history.
The solar cycle does coincide much more closely with temperature than CO2 levels. If you examine any chart of CO2 levels and temp going back for a period longer than 100 years or so, it’s clear that CO2 levels rise after temp goes up, not the other way around. CO2 is increasing despite the fact that temp is decreasing, demonstrating that our climate is still far too complex to model and that CO2 is unable to overcome natural climate forcings.
Air pollution, according to the IPCC models, is actually a very good thing since without it’s dimming effect we’d already be facing catastrophe. But since CO2 levels have been up to 20 times higher than they are today, and temp was only 7C higher than today, the entire IPCC house of cards will collapse under it’s own weight.
- Posted by M DavisConscientious Observer writes:
“Lets all stick our heads in the sand and pretend that nothing is going on. It’s ok to be in denial, it a form of self preservation. It’s absurd not to think that infitesimal man and his civilizaitons on earth could have any impact on the temperature of the earth. Ok there is oposing evidence regarding temperature at the moment, but what about the Earth itself. Anyone with basic year 6 or 7 science / year 8 biology and/or parents conscious of the environment around them, would understand that continually putting pollutants in the air and water will eventually cause problems because they sooner or later ‘will not go away’.”
Hmm.. so you are trying to convince people who are skeptical of the claim that CO2 (not a pollutant).That it is the main driver of warming.Being in denial?
Did you actually read the article at all?
There is nothing about pollution in it at all.It is about global temperature changes or lack of one.It also mentioned a paper about no warming for another decade or more of cooling.That would mean at least 20 years of cooling.
The question should really be asked is:
Why is there a prolonged cooling trend,when that should not be possible with the continued yearly increase of atmospheric CO2 levels?
- Posted by sunsettommySorry but it just isn’t accurate to say that 2007 was the 7th hottest year since 1850. I don’t care what the World Meteorological Organization says. Nobody knows what the world’s temperature was in 1850. How did they measure the temperature at the poles? In the middle of the oceans? In central Asia, Africa, North or South America? There is simply no way to accurately know what the earth’s temperature was before 1979 when satellites first started measuring it. In the last 29 years, 2007 was the 4th warmest.
- Posted by SeanLets all stick our heads in the sand and pretend that nothing is going on. It’s ok to be in denial, it a form of self preservation. It’s absurd not to think that infitesimal man and his civilizaitons on earth could have any impact on the temperature of the earth. Ok there is oposing evidence regarding temperature at the moment, but what about the Earth itself. Anyone with basic year 6 or 7 science / year 8 biology and/or parents conscious of the environment around them, would understand that continually putting pollutants in the air and water will eventually cause problems because they sooner or later ‘will not go away’. Look at any big city on the horizon and you will see the orange haze of pollution. Then there is the land clearing by man. If there is no plant to hold the topsoil, believe it or not it will get blown or washed away. This is called land degredation cause by infinitesimal man’s interference. Permanant damage done by the absurd actions of infinitesimal man. But that’s only the real hard evidence version of it all. There is the other version of denial many people choose to accept because it’s is too fearful/ hard to comprehend, too time consuming, too expensive, (it’s not happening in my back yard so it’s not my problem attitude), for them make any effort to try and fix it. While the people not affected stay in their nice little houses in the unravaged land and don’t see where their rubbish, CO2 they expel or poo actually goes, why should they believe what is actually going on then. The Earth is a living being and doesn’t take kindly to ill treatment. The Earth is trying to tell us ignorant humans something and we all need to stop and listen.
- Posted by Conscientious ObserverLet’s not forget Al Gore, one of if not the biggest scam artists in this debacle, has made a considerable amount from Occidental Oil, not to mention the many billions a year his Energy Trading company makes from carbon credits alone. The problem I have with this article is it, like most others, just forces this opinion that there’s a consensus amongst scientists that global warming is credible, while introducing a single skeptic presented as a rogue. Whenever anyone opposes the former-Global Warming now climate change theory, they are private. Meanwhile, 9/10 times those pushing the nonsense are Governments or UN. Nothing is gained from the skepticism, in fact, it’s likely to cause problems in the scientists career and personal life. Take the protest at the UN meeting where they were heckled and harassed by false environmentalists.
- Posted by FritzThose who work to advance the theory of global warming seem to me to have a very arrogant view of mankind…they have grossly exaggerated man’s ability to significantly affect the temperature of the planet.
I am not a scientist and have never heard of solar cycles 23 and 24 until today. It has always seemed common sense to me that of all the things that might effect the temperature of the earth, the sun is responsible for 99.999% (or more) of the temperature effect. It also seems common sense to me that the amount of heat emitted from the sun would not be 100% consistent; rather it would vary given the nature by which the sun generates heat. This would then logically lead to periods of time on the earth where its temperature would be warmer or cooler than the average…as the heat emanating from the sun varies, so does the earth’s temperature. I would guess that solar scientists have studied this for decades; and perhaps solar cycles 23 and 24 provides the evidence of a correlation between the sun’s heat emissions and the earth’s temperature.
If one takes the perspective of our entire solar system and understands the immensity of the sun and its power, it seems so absurd to me that someone can think that infinitesimal man and his civilizations on earth could have any impact at all on the temperature of the earth.
Scott Stivers
- Posted by Scott StiversThis man-made global warming fraud is motivated by totalitarian lust for power among collaborators from radical environmentalism, collectivist-altruist-socialism, and the UN rat’s nest of dictatorships. They all aim to destroy the last remnants of Enlightenment values and principles under which their own life-threatening irrationality is rightfully condemned.
Vaclav Klaus put it best at the 2008 Climate Change Conference in Manhattan, NY, “It is not about climatology. It is about freedom.”
It is time for the second Enlightenment-based intellectual revolution to throw off the shackles being crafted for us by these eco-totalitarians.
- Posted by MetaphysicianUnfortunately, those of us in the public will remain lost about this issue, and most people will just follow their political leaders in their opinions. For that matter, scientists may be just as lost. When an issue becomes as politicized as this one, it is very difficult to know which scientists are above the political fray.
In a general sense, science is just not up to understanding the weather yet. They cannot predict future weather with any greater certainty than psychiatrists can predict the personalities of people when they grow up. Too many variables and unknowns. I suspect there will come a day when predictability is possible. Not yet. With all their satellites and experience, meteorologists can’t reliably tell us the weather next week and sometimes not even the next day. What can a climatologist do looking ten years into the future.
Go ahead, find a book that supports your prejudice and learn only that side of the argument. Half the people you meet will agree with you and who cares about the rest. I, for one, can only wait, sitting on my fence, in blissful ignorance, until their is some bedrock of knowledge. I suggest everyone else, not a climatologist, do the same.
- Posted by David EisenbergThe assumptive myth that Cycle 23 was exceptionally long, and/or that Cycle 24 failed to arrive ‘on time’, deserves nothing more than a shrug. Cycles last 9 to 14 years, overlap, and frequently present short periods of dead spots. The only recent special event was the La Nina cool spike. It just shows existing processes continue to influence global patterns. The German model is a north-atlantic weather forecast. The real special issue is GHG buildup and its influence on climate. After the political fingers are worn out, the real questions are - how bad will it get, how soon will it get bad, and how long will the bad last. The article has a buried hint - the decision, for now, is to let loose the fullest measure of GHGs and see what happens.
- Posted by owlThere is an almost perfect correlation between the solar eruptional activity and the Earth’s climate.
- Posted by PerRight now the Sun is in an extreme low activity, prompting a free fall in the global temperature.
There is a reason that the agenda driven Gaia-climate scientists never mention indirect eruptional solar variations as a possible cause for climate change.
The moment they acknowledge that this can cause climate change their theory and argumentation collapses and the truth will be revealed to the world.
THIS IS TYPICAL OF GLOBULL WHINERS:
“The climate is being destabilized by pollution. That impacts food production, daily temperatures, and most important, rainfall.If we stop polluting today, it would take centuries for the climate to even out. The truth is that all this pollution has actually masked the warming, and as we increase the airborne pollution, we coat the earth in a blanket that reduces sunlight by 10%.Good luck.”
If you earth and peace loving, enviros that are needlessly scaring the crap out of our kids, really cared about anything BUT yourselves, you would stop taxing and banning things and making everyone else pay for your selfish do-gooding based on a non-existent crisis.
Ask any kid what life will be like for them or their kids later on a melting planet ravaged with storms and drought causing untold world suffering as promised by Al Gore, NASA, EPA and the UN. This is the first time since ancient sieges where an entire generation of young people now coldly accepts the possibility of suicide in their future.
25 years of Climate change is clearly just weather, a green Da Vinci Code, political and a media perfect storm that reminds us that yes, a civilized society can be so twisted, it thinks we are stronger than nature itself.
We are living longer than at any time in history and it is obviously not the environment that is killing us.
So get ahead of the curve because history will laugh and cry at humans changing the temperature of the planet.
GREEN IS MEAN
- Posted by mememine69Everyone needs to understand that the science does not support a heating of the Earth.
- Posted by CareyAl Gore will not take up invites for a debate on these issues, why?
Just follow the money. He comes out with a movie stating what he believes is our last chance to head off this doom and gloom heading our way.
When he lost the Presidency several years back, he went into a sort of sabbatical. I figure this having been one of the biggest failures of his life he suffered a breakdown. He gained weight and grew a scaggly beard and gave lectures to Vanderbilt students.
He more or less reinvented himself and decided he wanted to become one of the richest people he could be.
People need to know why someone with a zinc mine on his farm and flys everywhere on his private jet would be concerned with our lives being ruined by the ecology??
Just follow the money people. He is not that complicated.
i think it is completely overblown. i am sure we have affected it, but if we head into serious global cooling, we may be VERY glad that we helped warm it a bit.
- Posted by markThis global warming issue is the biggest farce ever perpetrated by man.
- Posted by JoeThe climate is being destabilized by pollution. That impacts food production, daily temperatures, and most important, rainfall.
If we stop polluting today, it would take centuries for the climate to even out. The truth is that all this pollution has actually masked the warming, and as we increase the airborne pollution, we coat the earth in a blanket that reduces sunlight by 10%.
Good luck.
- Posted by Earl E[...] what do you think? You could always comment here, there, or both. addthis_url = [...]
- Posted by Reuters: What happened to Global Warming? | Malagent's DomainI think that the global enviromental change for the most part is a good thing… It starts making of take responsibility for dumping huge amounts of pollutants in the air, instead of just ignoring it as we have done in the past… But…
I also think we should also be seriously focusing as well on the solar cycle 24 issue. We seem to be stuck in the short term at a solar minimum, and we need to start putting together possible plans in the event that it stays there. Meaning, if the solar minimum remains where it is, then empirical evidence from history tells us that we will have seasons where harvests will fail due to wet and cold conditions. I am not saying this would or could occur, but not looking at or putting plans in place could mean that millions of people could starve some point in the near future…
- Posted by Tim JonesAs a member of solarcycle24 I must put in a word for the Sun.
- Posted by Jock WCycle 23 is very long lived, 12 years against and average 10.5(ish), which is delaying the arrival of 24. This will lead, as it has done previously in the available record, to cooling. Whether this cooling will be large enough, or even soon enough, to derail the incredibly costly policies that some environmentalists are foisting on the rest of us is to be seen. Using current solar theory it would seem that the world is in for possibly 60 years of cool/cold - enough time to develop alternative technologies and for us to enjoy the tiny, tiny benign warmth, that we have “suffered” only recently, that the CO2 lobby claim is down to human fossil fuel use.