What happened to global warming?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

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.

[torn asunder]

i don't care what any of these idiots say, until they have hard data that spans thousands of years, they're all just bullshitting everyone. if you use data from any specific small period of time, you can make it say anything you want. i mean, if you were to use financial data from last year to predict where our country will be in two years, it'll say that most of us will be dead in an anarchistic clusterfuck of chaos...

[Rev.Reverence]

Thanx, Gaf.....I KNEW we were right.

...fuckin' worry-worts....MAN, is NOT a BIG as THEY think We are.

[Msterbeau]

You guys bury your heads in the sand. All the crap we pump into the atmosphere may not have the huge impact on overall global temperatures that the sun or other cyclical events do but it is causing harm and it does need to be regulated and moderated as much as possible. I think the term "Global warming" should be changed to "Climate change" or "Atmospheric health".

[torn asunder]

You guys bury your heads in the sand. All the crap we pump into the atmosphere may not have the huge impact on overall global temperatures that the sun or other cyclical events do but it is causing harm and it does need to be regulated and moderated as much as possible. I think the term "Global warming" should be changed to "Climate change" or "Atmospheric health".

i completely agree we should modify our behavior, i'm just saying it's not all "within 20 yrs NYC will be underwater!", or whatever other scare tactics they're spewing...

[Msterbeau]

i completely agree we should modify our behavior, i'm just saying it's not all "within 20 yrs NYC will be underwater!", or whatever other scare tactics they're spewing...

True. Alarmists don't help.

[Rev.Reverence]

You guys bury your heads in the sand. All the crap we pump into the atmosphere may not have the huge impact on overall global temperatures that the sun or other cyclical events do but it is causing harm and it does need to be regulated and moderated as much as possible. I think the term "Global warming" should be changed to "Climate change" or "Atmospheric health".

i completely agree we should modify our behavior, i'm just saying it's not all "within 20 yrs NYC will be underwater!", or whatever other scare tactics they're spewing...

...I would much prefer if they (whom ever they are) were to be concerned with our "Atmospheric Health"..

(as in, what we breathe)...instead of attempting to incite the populous to a state of panic over an imagined doomsday scenario...

...& better than anything...we need to start looking (in a more serious fashion) into colonization of other planets. This one is gettin' really crowded.

[Oh_My_Goth]

I could use a little global warming right now.. I'm freakin' freezing

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

i completely agree we should modify our behavior, i'm just saying it's not all "within 20 yrs NYC will be underwater!", or whatever other scare tactics they're spewing...

20yrs? how about never. There is no scientific data that shows that Carbon Dioxide causes warming. In fact, there is much data (taken from core samples and ice core samples that cover a few million years) that shows that it doesn't. I have also as yet to find anyone that can explain why Mars, Jupitor and Saturn show the exact same warming/cooling trends that Earth has for the same time periods.

[Rev.Reverence]

I could use a little global warming right now.. I'm freakin' freezing

That's what I'm sayin'!

[Rev.Reverence]

20yrs? how about never. There is no scientific data that shows that Carbon Dioxide causes warming. In fact, there is much data (taken from core samples and ice core samples that cover a few million years) that shows that it doesn't. I have also as yet to find anyone that can explain why Mars, Jupitor and Saturn show the exact same warming/cooling trends that Earth has for the same time periods.

...oK...not so quick question you may have answer to...IF ALL THE ICE IN THE WORLD MELTED...how high could it possibility raise the ocean's level?

..it can NOT be as much as say...Waterworld...right? I mean, covering EVERYTHING, except Everest...I never could buy that equation.

[darknight1]

...oK...not so quick question you may have answer to...IF ALL THE ICE IN THE WORLD MELTED...how high could it possibility raise the ocean's level?

..it can NOT be as much as say...Waterworld...right? I mean, covering EVERYTHING, except Everest...I never could buy that equation.

If you consider how much CO2 we've been pumping into the air since, oh, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the still lingering effects from atomic tests conducted by the US, UK, Russia, France and China from the 1940s until at least the early 1970s, plus the massive amount of pollution being generated by nations such as China or India (who both have massive factories in place there), and every other thing we run using fossil fuels and other assorted lovely things, well then yeah...there wouldn't be a Waterworld per se, but there's a hell of a lot of ice locked up in the North and South Poles still. At best it'd be more like what we saw in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", albeit on a less disastrous scale in so short a time.

[Msterbeau]

...& better than anything...we need to start looking (in a more serious fashion) into colonization of other planets. This one is gettin' really crowded.

How about we stop making so many damn babies and start taking care of the one's we have a little better? Another topic..

[darknight1]

How about we stop making so many damn babies and start taking care of the one's we have a little better? Another topic..

I'm all for space exploration. It's strange to see how our astronauts we send up (and not just American ones either) are able to get along better being up there then we are down here on Earth. Maybe Star Trek isn't too far off from becoming reality...technically speaking.

[TitsMcGee]

I could use a little global warming right now.. I'm freakin' freezing

You and me both. It freakin' snowed here last night..it's not supposed to do that for a few weeks yet.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

...oK...not so quick question you may have answer to...IF ALL THE ICE IN THE WORLD MELTED...how high could it possibility raise the ocean's level?

..it can NOT be as much as say...Waterworld...right? I mean, covering EVERYTHING, except Everest...I never could buy that equation.

Not as much as you might think. To really answer I would need to know exactly how much of the worlds ice is already floating. (I know it's a high number but not the exact amount). Try this... get a glass. fill it with ice. fill the rest of the empty space with water t0 the rim. Let it melt. What do you have? A cold glass of water with no spillage. Why? The ice is already displacing water. And as ice melts, it contracts... gets smaller... water levels should actually drop a small amount. Now, not all ice is floating... so there would be some water levels raising... how much? Our coast lines would alter drastically. The really big affect would be the cold. All the ice melting would drop sea temps drastically. This means no more warm water currents. The ice would reform and we would prolly go into the worst ice age Earth has ever known.

but hey, thats like science or something... Global warming activists hate real science.

[candyman]

...I would much prefer if they (whom ever they are) were to be concerned with our "Atmospheric Health"..

(as in, what we breathe)...instead of attempting to incite the populous to a state of panic over an imagined doomsday scenario...

...& better than anything...we need to start looking (in a more serious fashion) into colonization of other planets. This one is gettin' really crowded.

All they are really worried about is health...at least the sane people that are in charge.

This is mostly because the things like CFC's that destroy the Ozone have been banned, and although they still linger, are really not going to be made worse by what we are doing now.

The health issue not dealth with six criteria pollutants...which are CO, SO2, NOx (which is actually includes NO and NO2), PM 2.5 and PM 10, O3, and Lead.

Yes, Ozone is a pollutant but that is only when it is down by us. The rest of the pollutants listed also have terrible health effects if they hit us. The only problem is that only about half of the pollutants are man made and of those most are made in the industrial sector. This is a problem because although the technology exists for such things as clean coal, yes it really is clean look it up, the government is having a really tough time with letting the industrial people do their thing to change it. Yes the industrial sector does want to change these sytems to cleaner ones...mostly because it will make their systems far more efficient with is better for them and has the side effect of fewer, and with many close to zero, emissions.

We don't need other planets...we need to silence those that claim to care but are really just starting a frenzy that costs us alot of money being spent on systems that may or may nor help...then those that have clear minds can start the process of making things better. The way we are going we will be broke, more that now, with a bunch crap that may be the way of the future...but this is NOT THE FUTURE! These cars, windmills, solar panels, and so many other things that are being pumped out are not yet ready to replace what we have now in more ways that one. This panic has made us jump far ahead of where we are supposed to be. I mean seriously...they keep holding off LED technology for the home and have instead given up more bulbs that contain Mercury! IN OUR HOMES!

Edited October 13, 2009 by candyman

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

All they are really worried about is health...at least the sane people that are in charge.

This is mostly because the things like CFC's that destroy the Ozone have been banned, and although they still linger, are really not going to be made worse by what we are doing now.

The health issue not dealth with six criteria pollutants...which are CO, SO2, NOx (which is actually includes NO and NO2), PM 2.5 and PM 10, O3, and Lead.

Yes, Ozone is a pollutant but that is only when it is down by us. The rest of the pollutants listed also have terrible health effects if they hit us. The only problem is that only about half of the pollutants are man made and of those most are made in the industrial sector. This is a problem because although the technology exists for such things as clean coal, yes it really is clean...look it up, the government is having a really tough time with letting the industrial people do their thing to change it. Yes the industrial sector does want to change these sytems to cleaner ones...mostly because it will make their systems far more efficient with is better for them and has the side effect of fewer, and with many close to zero, emissions.

We don't need other planets...we need to silence those that claim to care but are really just starting a frenzy that costs us alot of money being spent on systems that may or may nor help...then those that have clear minds can start the process of making things better. The way we are going we will be broke, more that now, with a bunch crap that may be the way of the future...but this is NOT THE FUTURE! These cars, windmills, solar panels, and so many other things that are being pumped out are not yet ready to replace what we have now in more ways that one. This panic has made us jump far ahead of where we are supposed to be. I mean seriously...they keep holding off LED technology for the home and have instead given up more bulbs that contain Mercury! IN OUR HOMES!

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's the natural by product of animal life... that plant life requires to live.

[candyman]

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's the natural by product of animal life... that plant life requires to live.

I never listed CO2...I listed CO and SO2 which are pollutants. CO2 may not be great but I do agree that it is not a pollutant.

I am also going to take this comment as though you are talking to me like I am a child that knows nothing about chemistry and how it deals with the environment be it past, present, or future. To sum up the first sentence in this post...DUH!

Honestly, I should know better than to add comments on environmental topics...everywhere I go people on both sides kick you in the nuts without checking what side you are on if they think you fouled up.

Edited October 13, 2009 by candyman

[torn asunder]

20yrs? how about never. There is no scientific data that shows that Carbon Dioxide causes warming. In fact, there is much data (taken from core samples and ice core samples that cover a few million years) that shows that it doesn't. I have also as yet to find anyone that can explain why Mars, Jupitor and Saturn show the exact same warming/cooling trends that Earth has for the same time periods.

well, of course it's never... i was citing that as a "scare tactic" story the "warm-ites" are using. and even if CO2 was a major cause, we could just plant a shitload of trees to act as a carbon-sink to reduce it. that doesn't fit their agenda, however...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

well, of course it's never... i was citing that as a "scare tactic" story the "warm-ites" are using. and even if CO2 was a major cause, we could just plant a shitload of trees to act as a carbon-sink to reduce it. that doesn't fit their agenda, however...

Did you ever read the article by the founder of Greenpeace on what he thought we should do to reduce atmospheric CO2? Cut down all the trees, build stuff fromt he wood (not burn it) and plant new ones. His idea is based off the fact that fully grown trees might as well be dead for what little O2/CO2 they convert. A yearling tree converts about 1000x as much.

[torn asunder]

Did you ever read the article by the founder of Greenpeace on what he thought we should do to reduce atmospheric CO2? Cut down all the trees, build stuff fromt he wood (not burn it) and plant new ones. His idea is based off the fact that fully grown trees might as well be dead for what little O2/CO2 they convert. A yearling tree converts about 1000x as much.

well, i don't agree with cutting down *all* the trees, but sustainable forestry would, i think, be a big success.

btw, is that 1000x based on percentage when compared to size, or gross conversion?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

well, i don't agree with cutting down *all* the trees, but sustainable forestry would, i think, be a big success.

btw, is that 1000x based on percentage when compared to size, or gross conversion?

I'm trying to find the artcle. I know I posted it on here a while ago.

To try to answer... Old trees dont grow much... so they dont need much carbon (trees are about 50% carbon) for building blocks. young trees grow at about 1000x the speed of a grown tree, so use 1000x more carbon. the 1000x is prolly not the exact number... it's been a while since I read the article..