BBC: What Happened to Global Warming?

aaronman · Oct 15, 2009

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.
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa.

Arteezy · Oct 15, 2009

Ahh science. Sometimes it's just as bad as religion.

Norma Stits · Oct 15, 2009

i can go for some global warming about now.. it's been snowing all fucking day.. in october.

that must be a side effect of global warming..

UnbyJP · Oct 15, 2009

AugustWest said:

i can go for some global warming about now.. it's been snowing all fucking day.. in october.

that must be a side effect of global warming..
Click to expand...

+rep

Johnisriot · Oct 15, 2009

AugustWest said:

i can go for some global warming about now.. it's been snowing all fucking day.. in october.

that must be a side effect of global warming..
Click to expand...

Telling me, I moved from TN to WI for a job for a bit, and it's been snowing here. I was like wtf when I woke up lol.

Norma Stits · Oct 15, 2009

UnbyJP said:

+rep
Click to expand...

haha.. you know how it goes man

too hot = global warming

too cold = global warming

too much rain = global warming

drought = global warming.

as long as those UN approved scientists keep saying it.. then it's true no matter what any other scientist in the world says.

MadScientist215 · Oct 16, 2009

AugustWest said:

i can go for some global warming about now.. it's been snowing all fucking day.. in october.

that must be a side effect of global warming..
Click to expand...

wouldn't global warming correct itself? if it gets hotter, more water evaporates, which causes more clouds to block out the sun, then it cools, and we have precipitation, which is also known to be a coolant. nifty.

Raoul Duke II · Oct 16, 2009

I've never been a fan of the whole "global warming" but we do seriously affect the environment. Pollution is real and I think the biggest thing I have a beef with global warming critics is that many also deeply criticize the idea of pollution and believe that we should allow ourselves to do whatever we can to sustain this strange fucked up "standard of living" we have.

But like I said, that's just most, and when I mean most, I'm talking about vocal critics. Scientific critics still hold great reservations about pollution, but it's my observation that the corporatist apologists who defame global warming are also trying to associate pollution with it, and it always makes me sick.

aaronman · Oct 16, 2009

Raoul Duke II said:

it's my observation that the corporatist apologists who defame global warming are also trying to associate pollution with it, and it always makes me sick.
Click to expand...

It's the Al Goreans that associate global warming with pollution, not the evil corporatists.

They just love polluting because it's cheap.

Raoul Duke II · Oct 16, 2009

Yeah, to an extent(and that's always been one of my problems with "global warming." Like with many other issues, they group legitimate issues in with the bullshit), but also I mean listening to Rush or other "conservative" talking heads talk about is always ridiculous. I don't remember any exact quotes, but I've heard him on several occasions claim that companies and civilizations as a whole doesn't have to do anything for the environment except what's good for us.

And you're right, that's their entire reasoning (if you can call it that) behind it. It's cheap. That's also one of the things I've heard said. Companies shouldn't have to go through any environmental regulations if it'll hurt the profit margin. Even clean water regulations, which I must admit our government goes crazy with, he says shouldn't ever be because companies would never do it to an extent of hurting us because that would hurt them

I'll try to see if any of those quotes are anywhere, but finding shit like that is like wading through a sewer to find a peanut. But I'm donning my waders...

pmb6967 · Oct 16, 2009

I think I'm going to email this article to one of my old teachers. Can you imagine an entire English class based on global warming?

littlefoot · Oct 16, 2009

I don't doubt climate change is somewhat real, but global warming is not a good name for it, one of the big worries is the gulf(?) stream stopping, what would happen basically is Europe would experience extremely cold conditions.

So not all warming.

Norma Stits · Oct 16, 2009

littlefoot said:

I don't doubt climate change is somewhat real, but global warming is not a good name for it, one of the big worries is the gulf(?) stream stopping, what would happen basically is Europe would experience extremely cold conditions.

So not all warming.
Click to expand...

that's right. they changed the name to "global climate change." It may have been Bush who did that.

CannabisInCanada · Oct 16, 2009

pmb6967 said:

I think I'm going to email this article to one of my old teachers. Can you imagine an entire English class based on global warming?
Click to expand...

Campaign For Liberty — Global Warming Scandals and Extortion for 'Dignity' Â Â | by Floy Lilley

Send them that as well.

maxrule · Oct 16, 2009

I think we should just pave the entire planet and lobby for a perpetual 72 degrees globally.

Kylesa · Oct 16, 2009

Here.

A Cherry-Picker’s Guide to Temperature Trends (down, flat–even up)

\t\t\t\t\tby Chip Knappenberger
October 12, 2009

\t\t\t\t\t Accusations of cherry-picking—that is, carefully choosing data to support a particular point—are constantly being hurled around by all sides of the climate change debate. Most recently, accusations of cherry-picking have been levied at analyses describing the recent behavior of global average temperature. Primarily, because claims about what the temperature record says run the gamut from accelerating warming to rapid cooling and everything in between—depending on who you ask and what point they are trying to make.

I am often asked as to what is the “right” answer is. What I can say for certain, is that the recent behavior of global temperatures demonstrates that global warming is occurring at a much slower rate than that projected by the ensemble of climate models, and that global warming is most definitely not accelerating.

Choice of Cherries

But as to questions concerning just how far beneath climate model predictions the rate of warming is, or for just how long the average temperature of the world has not warmed at all, the answers depend on several things, among them the dataset you want to use and the time period over which you examine—i.e., which cherries you wish to pick.

Figure 1 illustrates the various cherry varieties that you have to choose from. It shows the global temperature history during the past 20 years as compiled in five different datasets (three representing surface temperatures, and two representing the temperatures in the lower atmosphere as measured by satellites—the latter being relatively immune form the data handling issues which plague the surface records).

Figure 1. Global temperature anomalies from September 1989 through August 2009 as contained in five different data compilations. The GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), NCDC (National Climate Data Center), and CRU (Climate Research Unit) data are all compiled from surface records, while the RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (University of Alabama-Huntsville) data are compiled from satellite observations of the lower atmosphere.

To give you some guidance as to which cherries to use to make which ever point you want, I have constructed a Cherry-Pickers Guide to Global Temperature Trends (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Cherry-Pickers Guide to Global Temperature Trends. Each point on the chart represents the trend beginning in September of the year indicated along the x-axis and ending in August 2009. The trends which are statistically significant (p<0.05) are indicated by filled circles. The zero line (no trend) is indicated by the thin black horizontal line, and the climate model average projected trend is indicated by the thick red horizontal line.

It shows the current value (though August 2009) of trends of various lengths from all of the five commonly used global temperature compilations. I compute the trends as simple linear least-squares fits through the monthly global average temperature anomalies for each dataset (from Figure 1). Each point in Figure 2 (for each dataset) represents the trend value for a different length period, beginning in September in the year indicated along the horizontal axis and ending in August 2009.

Starting in September of particular year and ending in August of this year produces a trend with a length expressed in units of whole years. For example, a trend starting in September 1999 and ending in August 2009 include 120 months, or 10 complete years. The values for the 10-yr trend for each dataset are plotted on the chart directly above the value on the horizontal axis labeled 1999. If the trend value is statistically significant at the 1 in 20 level (p<0.05), I indicate that by filling in the appropriate marker on the chart.
I also include several other items of potential interest to the cherry harvesters; first is the dotted horizontal line representing a trend of zero—i.e., no change in global temperature, and second, the thick red horizontal lines which generally indicates the average trend projected to be occurring by the ensemble of climate models. Bear in mind that red line only represents the average model expectation, not the range of model variability. So it shouldn’t be used to rule out whether or not a particular observed value is consistent with model expectations, but does give you some guidance as to just how far from the average model expectation the current trend lies (a cherry picker is not usually worried about the finer details of the former, but, instead, the coarser picture presented by the latter).
General Conclusions

Here are a few general statements that can be supported with using my Cherry-Pickers Guide:

• For the past 8 years (96 months), no global warming is indicated by any of the five datasets.
• For the past 5 years (60 months), there is a statistically significant global cooling in all datasets.
• For the past 15 years, global warming has been occurring at a rate that is below the average climate model expected warming

And here are a few more specific examples that the seasoned cherry-picker could tease out:

• There has been no (statistically significant) warming for the past 13 years. [Using the satellite records of the lower atmosphere].
• The globe has been cooling rapidly for the past 8 years. [Using the CRU and satellite records]

Or on the other side of the coin:

• Global warming did not ‘stop’ 10 years ago, in fact, it was pretty close to model projections. [Using the GISS and NCDC records beginning in 1998 and 1999]
• Global warming is proceeding faster than expected. [Using the GISS record staring in 1991 or 1992—the cool years just after the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo]

I am sure the more creative of you can probably think of many others.

Judging the Cherry Pickers

Another use of my Cherry-Pickers Guide besides choosing your own analysis, is to check and see what level of cherry-picking was required to support some statement of the behavior of global temperatures that you saw somewhere.

For instance, in a recent post over at RealClimate.org, Stefan Rahmstorf used about 10-yr to 11-yr trend in the GISS dataset to support the idea that global warming was proceeding pretty much according to plan, concluding “the observed warming over the last decade is 100% consistent with the expected anthropogenic warming trend of 0.2 ÂºC per decade, superimposed with short-term natural variability.”

A quick check of my Guide would show how carefully Rahmsdorf’s selection was made. Trends a few years longer or a few years shorter that the period selected by Rahmstorf would not have borne out his conclusion with as much conviction.

Another example of careful data selection can be found in recent claims made by Richard Lindzen who is fond of stating that “there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years.” A quick check of my Cherry-Pickers Guide shows Lindzen to be particularly crafty because there is no support for such a statement in any of the five datasets. So how did he arrive at that conclusion? By using annual data values instead of monthly data. Using fewer data points (14 annual values instead of 168 monthly ones) doesn’t affect the actual trend value so much, but it does affect the statistical significance of the trend. The fewer data points you use, the less significant the trend is. So by using annual data (from the CRU or satellite datasets), Lindzen is able to cite a 14-yr temperature trend that is not statistically significant.

The statements by Rahmstorf and Lindzen are not wrong, per se, but neither are they particularly robust.

So next time you encounter some claims about what recent temperatures tell us about global warming, or want to make one yourself, check my Cherry-Pickers Guide to get a full appreciation for the degree of grounding that such statements enjoy. And for those folks who want to push the envelope a bit, you’ve got to hope that your audience doesn’t have access to my Guide—otherwise, someone, somewhere, is sure to call you on it!
Click to expand...

aaronman · Oct 17, 2009

Climate change dominoes fall

Australians are the latest citizenry to turn against climate change catastrophism. For the first time, according to a Lowy poll released this week, a majority of the population turned thumbs down to the proposition that “global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.” This rejection applied to younger segments of the population as well as old, especially disappointing to Australian decision makers, given their efforts to indoctrinate youths through the educational system.

Last year, 60% of the populace bought into global warming fears and in 2006, the figure was 68%...

...With Copenhagen fast approaching, the government has decided to pull out all the stops with an unprecedented prime time TV ad campaign to turn public opinion around. “The survey results show that people don’t realize that climate change is already under way and could have severe consequences,” Joan Ruddock, the Energy and Climate Change Minister explained in justifying the need for her aggressive campaign. The Â£6-million ad campaign showing scenes of devastation through animation — flooding, drowning animals and humans, a sign that reads “The World’s End” — fittingly premiered on the night-time soap opera, Coronation Street, with an ad entitled “Bedtime stories.”
Click to expand...

Look at how the government scrambles to try and preserve it's relevance.

letsgetPOD · Oct 17, 2009

They changed it to climate change because the climate is always changing, no one can dispute that right? They created an absense of opposition because no one can argue the climate is not changing, cool I agree, now how does carbon fit in to the system

maxrule · Oct 18, 2009

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCrCUmk5bTA]YouTube - Depopulation and Global Warming Scam[/ame]

Thatcher adviser: Copenhagen goal is 1-world government
'Global warming' to be used as 'pretext' for 'change'

letsgetPOD · Oct 19, 2009

Welcome to your new home for the 21st century, OH wait!?

Forums

BBC: What Happened to Global Warming?

aaronman n'wah

Arteezy BabyRage

Norma Stits Guest

UnbyJP Vaping since '08

Johnisriot zombie.

Norma Stits Guest

MadScientist215 The Mad Batcher

Raoul Duke II I want to be this guy
Gold Member

aaronman n'wah

Raoul Duke II I want to be this guy
Gold Member

pmb6967 i throw away pennies
Old School

littlefoot shenzhou

Norma Stits Guest

CannabisInCanada Toronto - Musician

maxrule keeper of the faith

Kylesa Guest

aaronman n'wah

letsgetPOD Guest

maxrule keeper of the faith

letsgetPOD Guest

Share This Page

Network

Forums

Help

Find Us On

Useful Searches

BBC: What Happened to Global Warming?

aaronman n'wah

Arteezy BabyRage

Norma Stits Guest

UnbyJP Vaping since &#39;08

Johnisriot zombie.

Norma Stits Guest

MadScientist215 The Mad Batcher

Raoul Duke II I want to be this guy Gold Member

aaronman n'wah

Raoul Duke II I want to be this guy Gold Member

pmb6967 i throw away pennies Old School

littlefoot shenzhou

Norma Stits Guest

CannabisInCanada Toronto - Musician

maxrule keeper of the faith

Kylesa Guest

aaronman n'wah

letsgetPOD Guest

maxrule keeper of the faith

letsgetPOD Guest

Share This Page

UnbyJP Vaping since '08

Raoul Duke II I want to be this guy
Gold Member

Raoul Duke II I want to be this guy
Gold Member

pmb6967 i throw away pennies
Old School