Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Happened to Global Warming

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Happened to Global Warming

    Page last updated at 15:22 GMT, Friday, 9 October 2009 16:22 UK
    E-mail this to a friend Printable version

    What happened to global warming?

    By Paul Hudson
    Climate correspondent, BBC News



    Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
    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.


    Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases
    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.


    In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

    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.


    The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume


    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.
    Originally posted by kontemplerande
    Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.

  • #2
    Don Easterbrook has been saying this for some time, I've heard him on national and the local talk show. It's a liberal college (big surprise) but he sticks to his guns and soldiers on.

    http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/

    Comment


    • #3
      Maybe they did'nt know wtf they were talking about?
      NO-LIFER

      Comment


      • #4
        I would be interested in seeing NOAA's take on this.

        Polar ice caps have certainly thinned considerably over the last decade. This is consistent with ocean water temperatures increasing. It is possible for surface temperatures to show no change while below-surface water temperatures increase.
        Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
        Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DAL View Post
          I would be interested in seeing NOAA's take on this.

          Polar ice caps have certainly thinned considerably over the last decade. This is consistent with ocean water temperatures increasing. It is possible for surface temperatures to show no change while below-surface water temperatures increase.
          They have shown polar ice caps in "some" areas have decreased and in others they've increased. In the end its a draw. Polar bear populations are at a high as well.

          It is also possible for goats to rain down from heaven but I don't think were planning for that either.
          Its typical for libs to use a set of examples to prove their point and when they get proven false they come up with another story rather than admit they were wrong.

          Kinda hard to admit that though when you've dedicated your entire livelihood on ringing the global warming bell.

          Just keep saying the lie over and over and eventually people think its true.
          Due to the Juvenile bickering and annoying trolling committed by members of this forum I have started an igore list. If your name is listed below I can't see you.

          CityCopDC, Fire Moose, Carbonfiberfoot, Damiansolomon

          Comment


          • #6
            Remember, it isnt 'Global Warming' anymore.....now it is 'Global Climate Change'......
            The posts on this forum by this poster are of his personal opinion, and his personal opinion alone

            "Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reason"

            "We fight not for glory; nor for wealth; nor honor, but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by leesrt View Post
              They have shown polar ice caps in "some" areas have decreased and in others they've increased. In the end its a draw. Polar bear populations are at a high as well.

              It is also possible for goats to rain down from heaven but I don't think were planning for that either.
              Its typical for libs to use a set of examples to prove their point and when they get proven false they come up with another story rather than admit they were wrong.

              Kinda hard to admit that though when you've dedicated your entire livelihood on ringing the global warming bell.

              Just keep saying the lie over and over and eventually people think its true.
              I don't think this should be a political issue, but you (and most other members here) seem to be intent on turning it into one. Political philosophy is no substitute for scientific rigor.

              I would say that the conservatives are the ones here who use examples to "prove" that no global warming is occurring. Obviously, anecdotal evidence has little if any probative value.

              I am not interested in anecdotal data, but rather comprehensive studies. I do not give credence to stories from any "news" source or advocacy group, since they are all biased.
              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                The problem with "global warming" is the failure of its supporters to actually look at data scientifically versus molding the data to suit their own beliefs. The "global warming" craze use to be pushed as the next ice age. Anyone that has ever done any testing knows that to accurately measure anything you can not have such a small and narrow testing procedures. The amount of time being measured is too small. You have to look at the period you are in and begin there. Earth has never had a stable temp and it will change even in the same period. And once you do that, don't forget about the sun. Higher activity on the sun's surface ( or lower) will affect the Earth.

                Let us not forget that in the world of science, heavy disagreement is the rule of the day.

                Sometimes I feel that the global warming crowd is the same crowd that watches CSI and believes thats how all investigations should be conducted.
                Last edited by Rifleguy; 10-12-2009, 04:02 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It may be the case that the actual height of different areas in the plain may be higher in the 2003 figure than in the 1979 figure. Given the melting effect it is less likely the reality for the highest point of the polar plain in 1979 is < highest point in 2003.

                  Minor addition: If the integral surface area slabs are the same and the surface area is still less in later years than in earlier years the polar ice caps are melting.

                  FYI: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...023esuice.html
                  Last edited by E3CSHARP; 10-12-2009, 04:07 PM.
                  Young people will change the old wicked ways of the past.sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by LA DEP View Post
                    Remember, it isnt 'Global Warming' anymore.....now it is 'Global Climate Change'......
                    Because the data isn't panning out for them, so they decided to change the verbage. I never understood how so many my age or older could be sucked into joining the church of global warming. Heck I can still remember as a young kid back in the 70's being scared of global cooling. I can't imagine how kids today must feel with the last decade of doom and gloom. It seems that some adults just aren't that skeptical I guess.
                    "The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life." - Teddy Roosevelt

                    Disclaimer: The opinions I express here are mine and mine alone. They are not intended to reflect the positions/opinions of any other known person(s) or organization(s).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DAL View Post
                      I don't think this should be a political issue, but you (and most other members here) seem to be intent on turning it into one. Political philosophy is no substitute for scientific rigor.

                      I would say that the conservatives are the ones here who use examples to "prove" that no global warming is occurring. Obviously, anecdotal evidence has little if any probative value.

                      I am not interested in anecdotal data, but rather comprehensive studies. I do not give credence to stories from any "news" source or advocacy group, since they are all biased.
                      On the other hand, government payroll scientists and researchers who are funded by government grants may well be influenced (coerced) into coming up with "findings" that those who pay them want to see.

                      As far as the arctic ice caps go, if it were a global phenomenon, logic would dictate that the south pole would have similar loss of ice mass. I have heard that currently the ice mass in the Antarctic is at a high.

                      Also, it's very suspicious that the "global warming" sect subtly transitioned to the "climate change" sect. It would appear that they were given a heads up that the data would not support their contention so their marketing division devised a new mantra.

                      Al Gore was able to earn millions of dollars before this data came out. Why aren't more people suspicious of him being the flag bearer of this issue? He is not a noted scientist. He is just a has been politician. In addition, his starting a company to harvest the fruits of this crisis at the beginning of it is highly suspicious. Lucky for him he is a Democrat, otherwise 60 minutes would have been all over him.
                      Jubilant Patriotic Republican

                      America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Interestinglym the BBC Says the Opposite the Next Day

                        'Scary' climate message from past

                        By Richard Black
                        Environment correspondent, BBC News website

                        A new historical record of carbon dioxide levels suggests current political targets on climate may be "playing with fire", scientists say.

                        Researchers used ocean sediments to plot CO2 levels back 20 million years.

                        Levels similar to those now commonly regarded as adequate to tackle climate change were associated with sea levels 25-40m (80-130 ft) higher than today.

                        Scientists write in the journal Science that this extends knowledge of the link between CO2 and climate back in time.

                        The last 800,000 years have been mapped relatively well from ice cores drilled in Antarctica, where historical temperatures and atmospheric content have left a series of chemical clues in the layers of ice.

                        But looking back further has been more problematic; and the new record contains much more precise estimates of historical records than have been available before for the 20 million year timeframe.

                        Sustained levels

                        The new research was able to look back to the Miocene period, which began a little over 20 million years ago.

                        At the start of the period, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere stood at about 400 parts per million (ppm) before beginning to decline about 14 million years ago - a trend that eventually led to formation of the Antarctic icecap and perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic.

                        The high concentrations were probably sustained by prolonged volcanic activity in what is now the Columbia River basin of North America, where rock formations called flood basalts relate a history of molten rock flowing routinely onto the planet's surface.

                        In the intervening millennia, CO2 concentrations have been much lower; in the last few million years they cycled between 180ppm and 280ppm in rhythm with the sequence of ice ages and warmer interglacial periods.

                        Now, humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases are pushing towards the 400ppm range, which will very likely be reached within a decade.

                        "What we have shown is that in the last period when CO2 levels were sustained at levels close to where they are today, there was no icecap on Antarctica and sea levels were 25-40m higher," said research leader Aradhna Tripati from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA).

                        "At CO2 levels that are sustained at or near modern day values, you don't need to have a major change in CO2 levels to get major changes in ice sheets," she told BBC News.

                        The elevated CO2 and sea levels were associated with temperatures about 3-6C (5-11F) higher than today.

                        No doubting

                        The data comes from the ratios of boron and calcium in the shells of tiny marine organisms called foraminifera.

                        The ratio indicates the pH of sea water at the time the organisms grew, which in turn allows scientists to calculate the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.

                        The shell fragments came from cores drilled from the floor of the Pacific Ocean.

                        According to Jonathan Overpeck, who co-chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) work on ancient climates for the organisation's last major report in 2007, this provides a more accurate look at how past CO2 values relate to climate than previous methods.

                        "This is yet another paper that makes the future look more scary than previously thought by many," said the University of Arizona scientist.

                        "If anyone still doubts the link between CO2 and climate, they should read this paper."

                        The new research does not imply that reaching CO2 levels this high would definitely result in huge sea level changes, or that these would happen quickly, Dr Tripati pointed out - just that sustaining such levels on a long timescale might produce such changes.

                        "There aren't any perfect analogies in the past for climate change today or in the future," she said.

                        "We can say that we've identified past tipping points for ice sheet stability; the basic physics governing ice sheets that we've known from ice cores are extended further back, and... I think we should use our knowledge of the physics of climate change in the past to prepare for the future."

                        Averting danger

                        At the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, governments pledged to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

                        What that level is has been the subject of intense debate down the years; but one figure currently receiving a lot of support is 450ppm.

                        On Tuesday, for example, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its prescription for tackling climate change, which sees concentrations of greenhouse gases peaking at the equivalent of 510ppm of CO2 before stabilising at 450ppm.

                        The Boxer-Kerry Bill, which has just entered the US Senate, also cites the 450 figure.

                        "Trouble is, we don't know where the critical CO2 or temperature threshold is beyond which ice sheet collapse is inevitable," said Dr Overpeck.

                        "It could be below 450ppm, but it is more likely higher - not necessarily a lot higher - than 450ppm.

                        "But what this new work suggests is that... efforts to stabilise at 450ppm should avoid going up above that level prior to stabilisation - that is, some sort of 'overshoot' above 450ppm on the way to stabilisation could be playing with fire."

                        Because of concerns about short-term sea level rise, the Association of Small Island States (Aosis), which includes low-lying countries such as The Maldives, Palau and Grenada, is pushing for adoption of the much lower figure of 350ppm.

                        But with concentrations already substantially higher, political support for that is scanty outside Aosis members.

                        [email protected]
                        Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                        Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          People need to be afraid of something.

                          Vampires in the middle ages,

                          Witch trials a little more recently,

                          Immigrants in the early 20th century of america (and a little now)

                          now Climate change.

                          People need to be worried about things to keep them glued to the news. where they can view commercials and whatever politics that news station is pushing at the moment.

                          Do you think fleas know how the dog works?

                          M-11
                          “All men dream...... But not equally..
                          Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it is vanity;
                          but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
                          for they act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.....”

                          TE Lawrence

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That isn't very scientific. A correlation doesn't demonstrate a causation. Assuming the numbers are correct, for the sake of argument, what's the evidence that CO2s influence the weather in any measurable way. A true scientific journal would establish that first.

                            The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. Let's say that the CO2s go so low that we all die, but the water vapor goes up for whatever reason (clouds are the usual suspect) the temperature will go up.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I really can't take anything conservatives say seriously when it comes to science. After all, most of the ones I know think the Earth is only 6k years old.
                              "The deepest human defeat suffered by human beings is constituted by the difference between what one was capable of becoming and what one has in fact become."

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5492 users online. 304 members and 5188 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X