21 replies to this topic

[Russ]

http://www.dailytech...rticle10866.htm

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.


Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program. Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column. The views and comments are those of the author only.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Rogerdodger]

I beat you to it: LINK Feb 26 2008, 08:56 PM


After the back-to-back ice storms in Tulsa, it's hard to sell Global Warming.

Okies still hear about the Dust Bowl in the 1930's with over 500,000 Americans left homeless.
THAT was hot.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 28 February 2008 - 08:36 PM.

[pdx5]

So long as no body can explain why the 3 to 4 miles thick layers of ice, where now there is city of Chicago, melted 10,000 years ago, I ain't subscribing to human caused global warming. The ice layers were result of last ice age 10,000 years ago. The melting of those glaciers formed the largest fresh water lakes in the world, known as the Great Lakes including Superior, Michigan, Huron etc. There was not a single car or power station or even a fire place 10,000 years ago. The cave man used flint stones to burn a few twigs is all. Yes Victoria, there is global warming and global cooling cycles on earth. It has been going on for Billions of years, long before human species arrived.

[grizzly]

This past winter has been cold, but the climate can fluctuate from year to year. There can be a year of cooling within a long term warming trend. One cold year does not invalidate the long term trend that clearly shows long term global warming. The five warmest years over last century have likely been: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.

To discount the overwhelming evidence of global warming because of a cold year, reminds me of the tobacco companies trying to discount the overwhelming evidence of hazardous health effects of smoking because some people did not contract cancer. Look at the weight of scientific evidence and long-term trends. This should not be a political issue. One should look objectively at the science.

This years cooling is likely due to the La Nina in the Pacific Ocean, but does not refute the IPCC's conclusions that there will likely be significant warming this century due to greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing temperatures track very well over the long-term with increasing Carbon dioxide levels in earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide levels measured in air trapped in polar ice thousands of years ago -- demonstrates that CO2 has never been at a higher concentration in our atmosphere over the last 10,000 years than now (mostly due to burning of fossil fuels since the start of Industrial revolution).

The world renowned Hadley Climate Centre in England predicted cooling in 2008 due to the LaNina:
see: http://www.terradail...xperts_999.html

"World to cool slightly in 2008, British Experts." The cooling comes against the background of an underlying warming trend, said Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years -- and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998 -- does not mean that global warming has gone away," he said.

"What matters is the underlying rate of warming -- the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 degree Celsius
above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 degree Celsius warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."

La Nina, effectively a drop in sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean can affect eather patterns in many parts of the globe, just like.
El Nino, a warming of Pacific sea surface temperatures, can affect weather causing drought or flooding.

Overall the global temperature is expected to be 0.37 degree Celsius above the long-term average of 14.0 degree,
making it the coolest year since 2000 when the value was 0.24 degree C above the average.

"Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature and the current
strong La Nina will act to limit temperatures in 2008," said Professor Chris Folland of the (Hadley Centre) Met
Office.

"However mean temperature is still expected to be significantly warmer than in 2000 ... Sharply renewed warming
is likely once La Nina declines," he added.

The forecasts take into account El Nino and La Nina, ballooning greenhouse gas levels as well as solar effects
and natural variations in the world's oceans. "

When you look at the bigger picture, unfortunately this recent cooling is not reflected in any manner the observed worldwide changes
that have been due to global warming, including:

the rapid loss the Arctic ice field
the rapid glacier retreat worldwide
the rate of permafrost melt
the loss of coral reefs worldwide due to warming and acidification
the rapid northward movement of many animal, even plant, species

U.S. military and homeland security recognize climate change for the significant threat that it is. http://www.securityandclimate.cna.org/

"Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions, according to a new study released by a blue-ribbon panel of retired admirals and generals from all branches of the armed services."

[Rogerdodger]

This valley was once filled with ice.
What happened to it?

[milbank]

Wasn't that a Tom Paxton song?

[skunk]

This past winter has been cold, but the climate can fluctuate from year to year. There can be a year of cooling within a long term warming trend. One cold year does not invalidate the long term trend that clearly shows long term global warming. The five warmest years over last century have likely been: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.

You don't need all that garbage science. All you need to know is that when the last moron recognizes and gets on the trend (Al Gore)

ITS OVER !!!!!!!

[Rogerdodger]

LINK
1860 July 9, the temperature reached 115 degrees in Lawrence, Kansas.

1891 July 25, peak of a horrible heat wave in Los Angeles, California, temperatures hit 109 degrees

1901 Warmest July month since 1867 at Lawrence, Kansas. Temperatures reached 100 degrees 21 of 31 days in July.
Peak reading was 108 degrees on July 24.
Temperature also reached 112 degrees in Phillipsburg, Kansas.

1911 New England severe heat wave - 105 degrees in Vermont.

1913 July 10 Greenland Ranch in Death Valley, California, reported 134 degrees.

1930 July 20, Washington D.C. reached 106 degrees.

1934 July Heat wave across the Great Plains.

1936 Temperature hit 121 degrees in North Dakota - July 6

1936 July, New York Central Park Observatory hit 106 degrees

1936 July 10, temperature hit 112 degrees in West Virginia; 111 degrees in Pennsylvania.

1936 July 14, hottest afternoon in Iowa; 113 stations had an average maximum of
108.7 degrees

1936 Kansas City, Missouri hit 100 degrees or higher for 53 days

1937 Yuma, Arizona, recorded 101 - 100 degree days.

1941 Heat wave in the state of Washington.

1950 September 1, 123 degrees at Yuma.

1955 July and August in the Northeast; highs were on average four degrees above normal.

1955 September 1, temperature hit 110 degrees in Los Angeles.

1955 14 days with 110 degrees or higher in Yuma.

1959 June, July, August and September, an average of 7.5 degrees above normal in Los Angeles.

1959 July 10 118 degrees at Yuma; Cow Creek, California reached 125 degrees.

1960 Second hottest month of July in Yuma (1959 first).

1965 July 30 Portland, Oregon hit 107 degrees.

1966 July St. Louis, Missouri, heat wave grips city.

1980 In Dallas, Texas, 42 days hit 100 degrees or higher from June 23 to August 3.

[colion]

http://www.newstates...om/200712190004


Has global warming stopped?

David Whitehouse

Published 19 December 2007

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same
as 2006 and every year since 2001'

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been
told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all
that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses
to melt?

Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most
of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we
digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report
that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at
Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming
camp.

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global
temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no
warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as
2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or
permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as
they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the
greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find
out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide
present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s
surface causing some heat to be retained.

Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse
gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an
enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we
are in trouble.

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the
greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon
dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is
clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward.
It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were
about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more
reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse
effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the
carbon dioxide levels increase.

But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for
some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed
Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of
about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the
global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from
370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3
deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s
not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact.
Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades
and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that
the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence
shows that global warming as such has ceased.
The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the
atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic
activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental
sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an
explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between
1940 and 1978.

But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has
remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting
aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at
precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide
that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems
highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean
cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation.

But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for
the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the
conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global
warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an
improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy
according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the
recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent
warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature
had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming
and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age!
Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases.
But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?

Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond
doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications
to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific
argument. Not so.

Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one
that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our
understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient
explanation for what is going on.
I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the
time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes
delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is
independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for
knowledge to any political cause, however noble.

The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if
we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as
the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far
less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain
why global warming has stopped.

David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC
News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year.
He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography
(John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com

[Rogerdodger]

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of
about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the
global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from
370ppm to 380ppm).

Ancient ice samples have shown that increasing CO2 levels LAG temperature increases.
In other words, increased CO2 levels may be an effect of warmer air caused by sun activity and not a cause of warming.
It appears that warmer air simply holds more CO2 than colder air, just as hot water will dissolve and hold in suspension more sugar (made of carbon) than will cold water.
The sugar does not cause the water to be warmer.

We know so little.
The logic of "we must do something before it's too late" may lead us to doing the wrong thing.
What if Al Gore freezes half the world?

Edited by Rogerdodger, 28 February 2008 - 11:52 PM.