[loz]

Interesting BBC article

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

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...

"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...


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."

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... he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself...

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.

[johntheexpat]

Well, it seems to me that those scientists who are predicting Global Warming in the near future are the very same scientists who predicted the current 'lack' of Global warming currently.
So, the skeptics' take those bits of science that they like and pooh-pooh those bits they don't.
A bit like Tories and Nu-Labour policies.

Oops, no politics please

(and if its hard to believe that CO2 is responsible for Global Warming, then blaming charged solar particles is way out there, but I'm sure the BBC have got it wrong, because they are the BBC reporting science.)

[loz]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Well, it seems to me that those scientists who are predicting Global Warming in the near future are the very same scientists who predicted the current 'lack' of Global warming currently.

Well I am not sure I saw many of them predicting a 30 year period of cooling as a precursor to warming. Their predictions just seem to be warming followed by more warming...

If we have 30 years of cooling post 1998, so until 2028, and then warming returns, it will be 2058 before we are just back to 1998 levels. And yet we are constantly told it is going to be warmer than today in just the next decade or so...

And the interesting observation in the report was that the climate models didn't predict it. So can we trust the models?

Was this widely predicted by the pro-MMGW camp? I don't recall it. Did any of them actually predict this in their models?

Don't get me wrong, I want us to be greener as much as anyone. I am sure we need to cut emissions, reduce consumption of scarce resources, etc, etc. But it won't help the arguement if the scientists are shown to be working from flawed assumptions.

[johntheexpat]

I posted this a while ago.

[DPinBucks]

The article is symptomatic of the BBC’s increasingly sensationalist attitude to science (I call it the “Horizon Dumbing-Down Effect”). They seem to be completely hooked on the idea that it’s valid to present iconoclastic ideas from individual scientists (the more telegenic the better, usually) as though they deserve equal weight to received ideas.


The main flaws in this article are, as usual:

• Confusion between climate and weather;
• Omitting to justify the implication that the greenhouse effect has somehow become inoperative; or if it hasn’t, to tell us where the extra heat has gone.
• Omitting to put the timescales into context
• Omitting to point out that short-term fluctuations may mask far more important underlying trends;

[loz]

So, as I asked can anyone clarify the situation? Have we had a decade of cooling? Will we have another decade or two of cooling? Did the clate models predict this? Is it fair to say that the temperatures of 1998 might not reappear until 2058? If this is so, then why is so much emphasis of climate change put on warming? Are sea levels going to rise and the polar ice caps still going to disappear, or is that now much further away - post 2058?

[DPinBucks]

Loz,

The real answer to your questions are: we don’t know.

We do know that we are increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that this will lead to more solar energy being trapped as heat, and that that heat has to go somewhere.

This extra heat will affect the climate, but we don’t know by how much, nor do we know over what timescale, nor what the effects will be on the Earth’s ecology in general and on human activity in particular. Whatever these effects will be, the best predictions we can make are that they will start slowly over the next few decades, then accelerate rapidly over the next century to a new stability.

The climate effects will manifest themselves as increased instability: more frequent but less predictable extreme events. This may actually result in periods of unusual coolness, and extreme winter blizzards and frosts are just as likely as droughts and heatwaves.


Things which may make the effects worse include:

• Methane released from permafrost;
• Vegetation die-off through climate change
• We don’t stop producing more CO2

Things which may ease them include:

• Reflection from cloud cover;
• Vegetation growth spurt due to increased atmospheric CO2;
• We do stop producing more CO2

The long-term physical effects may well include (all highly speculative):

• Rising sea levels; local flooding and permanent inundation;
• New climatic regions of sub-continental size. The Steppes may become the world’s breadbasket; Kansas a desert; Australia an uninhabitable inferno.
• The English Riviera;
• A new Scottish symbol: McChampagne

Global warming is happening; human activity is certainly contributing, probably overwhelmingly so. But the Earth will survive; humans will survive. We probably won’t like it, though. It makes overwhelming sense to try and do something about it.

Does this help answer your question?

[Steve.J.Davies]

This causes a dent http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/...i.grl.2009.pdf

[Stephen Wilde]

Do excuse me for laughing.

[t72bogie]

am I 20 years out of date then, cos when I was a lad they said we are heading for an ice age soon, not nice warm weather?

[TESLACOIL]

y i remember that

bring on global warming lol (its chilly in england) I live on a hill away from the coast so i don't care lol !

its a complex science....we know 100 times more about that science now than we did in the 1970's. Today we have tens of thousands of sensors all over the globe, super computers doing more work each day than in the entire decade of the 70's

we are that much closer too the truth regarding climate change, but we have some way to go yet

there is a small but real risk we will flip the climate big time + 15 degrees, good bye civilization welcome back stone age, say good bye 99% of the worlds population

minor Climate change and a bit of sea level rising is no big thing overall, disruprtive yes, a few nations will suffer very badly

The real danger we face is suddenly running out of oil & gas & clean water just as the population peaks 8 to 12 billion. This means that every modern society on earth will collapse withing decades.

the first effects of the shortages will be felt within the next 15 years

by 2050 we will be feeling the pinch " omg they were right..help "

sometime between 2050 and 2100 the world will go "Oh ****"

It is the greatest regret of my life i shall not be there to utter the words

I TOLD YOU SO !

[hellot]

It's a serious theme, the new movie 2012 also shows its concern, we should protect our earth.

[stuart2]

Interesting how the protesters don't know the facts:

YouTube - Lord Monckton Vs. Greenpeace: On The Streets - Dropping InfoBombs - ClimateGate Global Warming Hoax

[Wild Weasel]

Originally Posted by DPinBucks

We do know that we are increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that this will lead to more solar energy being trapped as heat, and that that heat has to go somewhere.

CO2 has a narrow infrared absorption range covering about 8% of the infrared spectrum. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will not increase that absorption range, so how exactly is more CO2 supposed to make any difference?

[stuart2]

Originally Posted by allisa

Yes you can have many good and great news for global warming:-
a) glaciers are melting
b) water is extincting
c) environment is getting dirtier
d) garbage is not disposed properly
e) trees are cutting off
f) ozone layer is depleting
g) high temperature
h) can cause floods, thunder storm, tsunami(huge waves), cyclones, earthquakes.
i) Green house problem

INCREASE IN CARBON-DI-OXIDE LEADS TO GLOBAL WARMING.

Aspects:-
Refrigerators are used which produce a lot of heat; cars; A/C in shopping centers; laptops; power plant smoke; bomb pollution; val canoe irruptions; fire in factories;

You are doing the same as the woman from Greenpeace. Check the facts. Here is one to start you off:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

CO2 has a narrow infrared absorption range covering about 8% of the infrared spectrum. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will not increase that absorption range, so how exactly is more CO2 supposed to make any difference?

Because it's nowhere near saturation.

CO2 comprises about 0.04% of the atmosphere. It captures only a tiny fraction of the emitted IR which lies within its absorption range; the rest is radiated to space. Double the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and you double the capture.

[Wild Weasel]

Actually, atmospheric CO2 already filters out virtually all the IR radiation (in its absorption range) coming up from the surface of the earth. It does this within a few meters, to a few kilometres, depending on the wavelength. Adding more CO2 would only marginally shorten this distance.

[simonoaks]

Originally Posted by loz

So, as I asked can anyone clarify the situation? Have we had a decade of cooling? Will we have another decade or two of cooling? Did the clate models predict this? Is it fair to say that the temperatures of 1998 might not reappear until 2058? If this is so, then why is so much emphasis of climate change put on warming? Are sea levels going to rise and the polar ice caps still going to disappear, or is that now much further away - post 2058?

the experts will let you know in 20 years

[simonoaks]

Originally Posted by allisa

Yes you can have many good and great news for global warming:-
a) glaciers are melting
b) water is extincting
c) environment is getting dirtier
d) garbage is not disposed properly
e) trees are cutting off
f) ozone layer is depleting
g) high temperature
h) can cause floods, thunder storm, tsunami(huge waves), cyclones, earthquakes.
i) Green house problem

INCREASE IN CARBON-DI-OXIDE LEADS TO GLOBAL WARMING.

Aspects:-
Refrigerators are used which produce a lot of heat; cars; A/C in shopping centers; laptops; power plant smoke; bomb pollution; val canoe irruptions; fire in factories;

Do you have links to these random quotes please, I would like to be educated. As point 'b' is one I certainly didn't realise, as I was under the impression that there is the same amount of water on the planet now as there was 300m years ago.

[simonoaks]

Originally Posted by TESLACOIL

y i remember that

bring on global warming lol (its chilly in england) I live on a hill away from the coast so i don't care lol !

its a complex science....we know 100 times more about that science now than we did in the 1970's. Today we have tens of thousands of sensors all over the globe, super computers doing more work each day than in the entire decade of the 70's

we are that much closer too the truth regarding climate change, but we have some way to go yet

there is a small but real risk we will flip the climate big time + 15 degrees, good bye civilization welcome back stone age, say good bye 99% of the worlds population

minor Climate change and a bit of sea level rising is no big thing overall, disruprtive yes, a few nations will suffer very badly

The real danger we face is suddenly running out of oil & gas & clean water just as the population peaks 8 to 12 billion. This means that every modern society on earth will collapse withing decades.

the first effects of the shortages will be felt within the next 15 years

by 2050 we will be feeling the pinch " omg they were right..help "

sometime between 2050 and 2100 the world will go "Oh ****"

It is the greatest regret of my life i shall not be there to utter the words

I TOLD YOU SO !

You are right, over population is indeed a very serious issue. Perhaps GW is nature's way of dealing with the issue, kill off a few billion people and restore some balance, sounds like a good plan to me.

If GW is happening, I just wish we would stop wasting countless billions of dollars trying to stop the unstoppable, and start spending it on actually dealing with what the impact might be.

And while we are at it, built lots of Nuclear power stations to deal with the shortage of natural resources.