backtop

Blog: Science UN: Global Temperatures Will Decline in 2008
Michael Asher (Blog) - April 5, 2008 4:31 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 154 comment(s) - last by Frances.. on Apr 26 at 4:57 PM

The WMO attributes La Nina currents for cooling world temperatures  (Source: NASA)
Cooling Trend expected to continue throughout most of year

Earlier this year, DailyTech ignited a firestorm of debate with a pair of articles that demonstrated global temperatures had dipped sharply, along with predictions from scientists that the trend would continue.  The stories were picked up by hundreds of other news agencies and blogs; some even accused us of chicanery and fraud.

Now, the United Nations World Meteorological Association has somewhat ruefully weighed in to agree with what climate researchers have been saying all year: global temperatures have indeed dropped, and are expected to continue to do so throughout most of 2008. The cool spell means global temperatures have been on the decline for a full ten years, since early 1998.

WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud chalks up the cooling to La Nina effects, and says it doesn't mean global warming isn't a serious problem. "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming." Adam Scaife, lead scientist at the UK's Hadley Center for Climate Modeling, says he's confident that "within a few years" a new record temperature will be set.

However, some are calling the UN's stance nothing but spin control. Paleoclimatologist Bob Carter of James Cook University says the IPCC is in "full panic mode" and positioning themselves to "explain away" declining temperatures. Lord Monckton of Brenchley, science advisor to the Thatcher administration and a regular commentator on climate issues, tells DailyTech none of the IPCC's computer models can explain a decade of cooling.

Monckton, who considers the reporting on global warming to be the latest in a lengthy list of "needless and scientifically unjustified" environmental scares, says warming "may resume in future years [but] is self-evidently less than official forecasts, and very likely to be harmless."

Regardless of the cause, many are hoping the cooling ends soon. The past year saw dozens of nations struggle through record low temperatures and massive amounts of snowfall. If the trend doesn't reverse quickly, next year will be even more bitterly cold.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
slick
By TheDoc9 on 4/5/2008 8:15:24 PM , Rating: 4
Now the UN is trying to ease us over into Climate Change instead of Global Warming since they can't explain a damn thing. I guess it'll be icy in hell before they admit they were wrong.




RE: slick
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/5/2008 8:37:31 PM , Rating: 3
That's pretty normal for the UN. They will never admit they were wrong.


RE: slick
By B3an on 4/6/2008 2:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
So exactly the same as the US government then.


RE: slick
By lompocus on 4/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: slick
By Ringold on 4/6/2008 4:09:07 AM , Rating: 1
Well, to be fair, NATO allies have peacekeepers in a lot of places, and some times they manage to not make things worse and actually accomplish something, however small.

And the African Union has troops in various places, same story.

Of course, neither can hope to ever accomplish as much as we could if we were doing the same task, but better then nothing.


RE: slick
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/6/2008 10:17:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well, to be fair, NATO allies have peacekeepers in a lot of places, and some times they manage to not make things worse and actually accomplish something, however small.

As long as their objectives are clear from the start yes. NATO has problems when politicians start calling the shots and adjusting the mandates, just like the U.S. (See Iraq/Afghanistan)

quote:
And the African Union has troops in various places, same story.

The only reason they have troops anywhere is because the UN and old Koffi put them there. Frankly they don't measure up next to real troops of most other countries.

quote:
Of course, neither can hope to ever accomplish as much as we could if we were doing the same task, but better then nothing.

Politics in one country trying to accomplish something militarily is difficult. Involving several (NATO) makes it far worse if they don't have a fire lit under them. Due to U.S. power projection we haven't had to fight a war in our back yard in a very long time. This helps us correctly by keeping our civilians and infrastructure out of dodge but causes a detachment from the battles the military fights. This leads to all these peace type movements that have no place in the modern world. Peace is something the world is not ready for, and will not be ready for anytime soon.


RE: slick
By lompocus on 4/6/2008 12:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's good to promote peace, and to promote living so as to promote peace everywhere, but what is NOT acceptable for any power is anti-war movements in the middle of an ongoing war. Pulling out of war is essentially like, I dunno, investing 3 months into a Crysis SP map and then deleting the file before the turn in date.

You're right on every other point, unfourtunately. That's what happens when the military isn't allowed to totally obliterate it's objective. The job still gets done, I guess...it just takes way too much more time than it should need.

Remove politicians from any military venture for the US and tada world peace in 10 years!


RE: slick
By Manch on 4/6/2008 11:59:50 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah it's pretty sad about how politics and their lawyers have undermined the current operations and some of the more previous ones.

Pretty much anytime you have any kind of OP going their is a lawyer appointed whose sole purpose is to determine whether or not it violates LOAC or ROE.

Unfortunately more often than not they do not understand enough of WTF is going on. Also because of the current political climate their are a lot of knee jerk reactions over nothing and the delays and bullshit get in the way of getting the damn job done.


RE: slick
By Ringold on 4/7/2008 7:17:29 PM , Rating: 1
I'm no valiant defender of multi-lateral left-wing feel-good group-hug peacekeeper missions that accomplish little (like the UN peace keepers in south Lebanon that will only get in the way the next time shooting starts), but I was really trying to get to the idea that other people asides from ourselves have at tried to do good in their own neighborhoods, and some times they've even been half successful. I agree with you on all points.


RE: slick
By lompocus on 4/6/2008 8:35:09 PM , Rating: 1
lol, so funny, this post started with a rating of 2 and went down to 0. Isn't funny how anything saying the opposite of a previous post, and when providing a small amount of information regarding teh subject matter (The US does not suck), it gets rated down, but when its any non-us country it's rating goes sky-high! How funny.


RE: slick
By sweetsauce on 4/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: slick
By Jim28 on 4/7/2008 11:04:05 AM , Rating: 1
That is quite funny let me know when you find weapons of "math death". I doubt you find them but I always hated math anyway!.
If you are European, it is quite astonishing out how short your memories are. I guess Europeans did no wrong eh? If you think so how about read some history for once, instead of opening your mouth to spew hot air.
If you are an American, god help you.


RE: slick
By Spuke on 4/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: slick
By Spuke on 4/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: slick
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 1:19:44 PM , Rating: 1
I think you get automatically rated down for the use of certain language.


RE: slick
By Maluno on 4/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: slick
By Maluno on 4/7/2008 8:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
Huh... Doesn't appear to be the case. o_o.


RE: slick
By lompocus on 4/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: slick
By eye smite on 4/9/2008 6:39:51 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, I'm sure Iraq would have been better off with Sadam in place continuing to kill people cause they didn't obey his little rules. Oh yeah, would have been better to keep the UN in there as well so that Dutch companies could charge for 31 days worth of work in the month of February, yeah.


RE: slick
By jcrash on 4/10/2008 5:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you are correct. The WORLD and Iraq would've been better off.

Just because democracy works here, doesn't mean it will work everywhere. If the average person has a 2nd grade education, is brought up on hatred and violence, then guess what? The democratic process is lost on them. They only want to kill whoever they are currently feuding with.

What we did was remove the barriers to said feuds and throw them back into the dark ages in terms of food, clothing and electricity.

Further, back on the actual subject - OF COURSE THE WORLD WILL COOL DOWN WHEN YOU MELT THE POLAR ICE CAPS. Do a heat balance - all that cold water entering the oceans will TEMPORARILY cause cooling, but eventually, you will warm up even more because the caps will keep warming while the rest of the world enjoys the slight cooling spell. The Northwest passage is already open. Once you run out of icecubes, guess what? Your drink WARMS UP!


RE: slick
By jbartabas on 4/6/2008 12:26:05 PM , Rating: 1
They were wrong about what exactly here? Some models have been wrong before and improved, so I don't think that there is any denial of uncertainty in the IPCC. That's how it should work anyway.

What does the fact that 2008 will be 'slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific' (to use the exact words of the BBC journalist) has anything to do with proving the UN wrong?

Is there something like 'it is certain that yearly averaged global temperature will continuously increase without any short term modulation due to climate variability' in the IPCC report? Would you be kind enough to quote it?


RE: slick
By rsmech on 4/6/2008 5:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some models have been wrong before and improved, so I don't think that there is any denial of uncertainty in the IPCC. That's how it should work anyway.


So if you admit that the models have been wrong, have been changed, how can you say now that they are right and they won't be changed again? YOU CAN'T.

So why should I have to pay more, get taxed more, or change my lifestyle over a guess that easily cost billions if not trillions of dollars? I dislike universal health care, but with this kind of money being wasted it sure sounds like a better idea to waste it on then what you just admitted to as UNCERTAINTY.


RE: slick
By jbartabas on 4/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: slick
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2008 6:57:53 PM , Rating: 5
The difference here is that the theory of gravity was a model that instantly gave us accurate, verifiable predictions which we could test the model against. The model had both utility and predictive ability.

Global Climate Models, on the other hand, have never once been able to predict future climate conditions In fact, the IPCC is even now positioning themselves to ensure that their predictions can never be used against them, as in this recent quote from Kevin Trenbarth, lead author of the IPCC's Climate Change section, AR4:
quote:
I have often seen references to predictions of future climate by the ... In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been . The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” ...None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.

Still worse, many CAGW proponents are now shifting the debate from a falsifiable theory that can be proven or disproven, to an unfalsifiable one that chalks up any extreme weather event -- be it warming, cooling, drought, or flood -- to mankind's influence. This isn't science, it's blind faith...and a very dangerous one at that.


RE: slick
By Murst on 4/7/2008 4:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global Climate Models, on the other hand, have never once been able to predict future climate conditions

In 2000, a comparison between measurements and dozens of GCM simulations of ENSO-driven tropical precipitation, water vapor, temperature, and outgoing longwave radiation found similarity between measurements and simulation of most factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

Sure, wikipedia has been wrong sometimes, but your statement just seems absurd.


RE: slick
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 5:17:09 PM , Rating: 4
The study referenced by the wikipedia link you cited didn't predict any future events. The author simply punched in several known variables from the past into multiple GCM's and looked to see whether the GCM's accurately spit out the corresponding variables known by the author.
The ironic thing about you citing to that study is that the main focus of that study was to see how well the GCM's modeled precipitation intensity, and the author found that the GCM's were way off.


RE: slick
By rsmech on 4/6/2008 9:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to have missed my point which is why should this be costing me anything? Why am I taxed? Why are politicians proposing to limit or change my behavior? I don't discount the fact that science is progressing. The difference is why are people hellbent on an immature field of science as we should both be able to agree that from the disagreements within the field itself it has far to mature. Just because on side is louder doesn't make them right.

I must apologize for your misunderstanding of religion; I receive no scientific certainties from church. This is where I find FAITH & it's not faith in man.


RE: slick
By robinthakur on 4/7/2008 9:45:04 AM , Rating: 5
The whole point of the Global warming confidence trick, now conveniently renamed as Climate change to save the UN's blushes, is to extract as much money out of you as possible into the hands of government.

In the UK, this translates as Carbon Credits, congestion charging, more car controls and surcharges, Home Environmental Efficiency Packs, the price of petrol (in the UK 80% of the price of petrol goes to the government as Tax!), green taxes and mass guilt about flying.

I have nothing against improving the condition of the sea or reducing pollution, as a goal in and of itself, it benefits everybody with more recycling and less landfill.

However this seeming new climate change faith, in common with all mass religions was devised purely for mass control of the populace through fear. As noted above it will be interesting to watch people gradually spin the truth into a new far more deadly thing to be afraid of when this prohecy is not fulfilled.

That this particular cult is lead ostensibly by 'scientists' only makes the entire field of science look like utter hokum and is deeply embarassing. At one point in the early 90's when the whole environmental death plan changed from an incoming Ice Age which was going to kill everybody to Global Warming, it was possible to ignore the vocal minority and go about your business. Now this is not the case as their mouthy lobby has invaded government and succeeded in convincing sharp operating politicos that people are actually very willing to pay good money to try and change the way that the earth's climate behaves. Its just not possible. At what point did we all lose the plot here? People should be worried enough about oil running out and environmental pollution; climate change is a natural cycle.

Paying more money to the government and then expecting it to be used to change the ecology of the planet would insult the intelligence of a child. Where's your extra money being spent? Some of it is being used to kill people in Iraq and Afghanistan, alot of it is used up funding Politicians and their family's expenses and the rest is either used to plug the inefficiencies in government spending or kept safe in the central bank to shore up the currency. If politicians were so concerned, why do they fly to environmental summits in polluting aircrafts?

All it seems to take to induce mass panic is a few shots on the anecdotal news of a dead polar bear, anecdotal video of ice sheets collapsing (which we're helpfully informed "never normally happens") anecdotal opinons of people stating that they've never witnessed this sort of weather etc" and some very dodgy interpretations of 150 year climate data, which seem to omit the basic fact that the temperature of the earth has been cooling since the 1930's when the peak was recorded. One of the reasons politicians take this so seriously now is that polls and research have suggested that voters take it seriously. I would instead posit that we've all been force-fed mass hysteria through a straw by the very people we place our collective faith in.


RE: slick
By dever on 4/7/2008 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
I, too, am amazed at how so many people want to fine businesses. How can you not realize that these fines are just additional taxes on you, the individual when you consume products.

Instead, if companies are truly participating in harmful practices, your choice as a consumer is to not purchase what they are selling. If you everyone believes the AGW hype, they have the choice to limit their carbon output. Politicians instead override the collective will of their consuming constituencies and impose coercive restrictions on their consumption, because they believe they are superior.


RE: slick
By mkrech on 4/8/2008 1:31:34 PM , Rating: 1
RE: slick
By clovell on 4/14/2008 1:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
The current La Nina has been in effect since 2006. The place where this 'report' falls apart is that the global temperatures decreased from 1998 to 2005 - even through a record breaking El Nino.

These schmucks need to realize they can't have it both ways. First, they claimed AGW was responsible for the increase in tropical cyclone activity during the last El Nino event - completely ignoring ENSO. Now that everyone sees they're full of crap, they're running to use ENSO to explain away the temperature decline, and praying that nobody thinks about what happened in the other 7 years before our current La Nina started.


RE: slick
By Paul David on 4/6/2008 3:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
I would suggest all involved in this blog to check BBC's correction to this story, which is found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799....

Basically it was an example of sloppy journalism. The TV piece that accompanies this story was accurate. The premise that you are al fixated on (that temps have not risen since 1998) is incorrect, and BBC fixed it. Fact is 11 of the past 12 years are the hottest on record, with 98 the warmest. Just because subsequent years have not been as hot as 98, does not mean temperature warming is not continuing. Those subsequent years are still above than the long-term historical average, which means temps are rising. All La Nina has done is cool things for this year. Imagine what would the temperature be if La Nina had not hit?

So, please the read the story and, like BBC, consider correcting this blog.


RE: slick
By lompocus on 4/6/2008 3:41:56 AM , Rating: 1
It has been raining like mad at uncommon times here. In previous years it was warmer, but anyone with an iq better than a mentally retarded idiot can notice that it has been noticeably cooler in at least the past 3 years.


RE: slick
By Ringold on 4/6/2008 4:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Imagine what would the temperature be if La Nina had not hit?


But what of all the other years after 98 that have failed to be as warm?

Is La Nina the excuse every year?

How many years must pass without breaching the 98 high before theories get reconsidered?


RE: slick
By porkpie on 4/6/2008 10:57:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fact is 11 of the past 12 years are the hottest on record
Don't exaggerate. It's actually 8 out of 10. And its funny that whenever people say this, they never mention "the record" only stretches back less than 150 years. It also begins right at the end of the Little Ice age, when the planet was already warming up. It certainly wasn't man that started that warming trend.

Now, some inconvenient facts. The planet is still COOLER than it was during Medieval times. And temps have been going down since 1998. Yes the values are still above a "baseline" average, but the trend points down.

You can't explain away 10 years of cooling (soon to be 11) with a bunch of hand-waving about El Ninos. The models all predicted we'd be 2-4 degrees warmer than we are by now. They certainly didn't predict a decade or two of cooling.


RE: slick
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/6/2008 12:35:26 PM , Rating: 3
Paul,

I did not see a retraction or correction in the link you posted. It's the same link that we posted so I'm guessing you just hit paste on the wrong link.

I'm all for posting a retraction but I haven't seen anything that disagrees with what we or the BBC posted.

"Imagine what would the temperature be if La Nina had not hit?"

As discussed in the BBC article and various other climate blogs, some suggest La Nina might be a feedback mechanism.


RE: slick
By nstott on 4/6/2008 9:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
So, if the BBC couldn't get it right before, why should we trust them to get it right now?


RE: slick
By rcc on 4/10/2008 5:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yet, if we expand the window from 11-12 years, to 1000, 100,000 or 1 million years, I think you'll find we are still cooling. Data is really great, if you apply the filters properly you can pretty much dictate the results.


RE: slick
By clovell on 4/14/2008 1:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Or, please consider that our current La Nina started in 2006 and global temperatures decreased through the last El Nino. Maybe you should imagine how much cooler it would be now if El Nino had not hit a few years back?


RE: slick
By gmw1082 on 4/6/2008 11:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
"I guess it'll be icy in hell before they admit they were wrong."

Here's the beauty of the global warming argument. They can just say Al Gore's $300 million ad campaign caused people to become aware of global warming. Then they can blame dropping temperatures on people being "aware" and taking steps to reduce global warming.


RE: slick
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/6/2008 3:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
But if it fails they can also say that we were too late, the damage was done, we can only contain the magnitude of damage now.

I love how their argument has its cake and eats it too. Yet somehow people accept this.


RE: slick
By theflux on 4/6/2008 5:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
I have to admit Global Warming has been great for the UN. For an organization that exists solely to manage nations working together, nothing helps them remain relevant like a global "crisis" that is nearly impossible to prove or disprove. Throw in some publicity seeking politicians (Gore), and environmentalists who care more about keeping the environment as they want it to be than they do letting it progress through its normal cycles and you've got a great made-for-tv movie. Except unfortunately it's real.


RE: slick
By JustTom on 4/7/2008 9:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now the UN is trying to ease us over into Climate Change instead of Global Warming since they can't explain a damn thing.


How can you deny Climate Change. Everyday I wake up go outside and THE WEATHER IS DIFFERENT!!! Sometimes it is sunny, sometimes cloudy, and sometimes it even rains. Anyone who denies Climate Change is denying solid empirical observation.


RE: slick
By Justin Case on 4/12/2008 3:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Now the UN is trying to ease us over into Climate Change instead of Global Warming since they can't explain a damn thing.


FYI, the term "climate change" (as an alternative to "global warming") was coined by a GOP advisor (Frank Luntz) in the late 90s. And I actually agree with him. While technically correct (because the global average temperature is rising), the term "global warming" gives the impression that the entire globe is getting warmer, which is not true. Some parts get hotter, some parts get colder. The actual problem is the increased energy in the atmosphere, which can manifest itself as heat (causing ice to melt, etc.) but also (more immediately) as stronger and more frequent storms. So the term "climate change" is more descriptive.

In any case, the UN's role is hardly to forecast the weather; they simply compile and publish studies made by climate scientists. And the (vast) majority of climate scientists seems to agree that it is possible to influence the weather through the selective release of certain gases. There is a noisy (but very small) minority of conspiracy theorists, but those pop up in any field.

The issue is not if climate change is "natural" or not; ice ages are "natural" but if one was about to start, I'm pretty sure no one would argue for sitting still and freezing to death.

In the long run (decades, centuries), climate change costs lives and millions of dollars to the global economy. Most private companies care only about the short term (months, years), because they are driven by market speculation and administration board cycles.

When some governments (cough, cough) are essentially controlled by a handful of CEOs (and by religious nutters who think that a) God will protect them and b) the world is going to end soon anyway), maybe the UN, with its many flaws and snail's pace, is the best chance we have.

Scary, isn't it?


RE: slick
By masher2 (blog) on 4/13/2008 9:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
> "FYI, the term "climate change" (as an alternative to "global warming") was coined by a GOP advisor (Frank Luntz) in the late 90s. "

This is not correct. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988.

> "the term "global warming" gives the impression that the entire globe is getting warmer, which is not true. Some parts get hotter, some parts get colder."

No. Basic GW theory implies a rise in the mean temperature of the entire planet. While true that circulatory changes can in theory lead to cooling of some areas, that means other areas have to get even warmer still to compensate -- the total heat content of the entire system is rising.


RE: slick
By Justin Case on 4/14/2008 6:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
And my grandfather used the term "climate change" one morning in 1933 after he noticed his joints hurt a bit. Read what I wrote: as an alternative to "global warming", see? It's there. You even quoted it.

I repeat: It was only after Frank Luntz specifically advised the GOP to replace "global warming" with "climate change" in any documents it sanctioned (because it sounded "less scary", according to him) that the term gained mainstream popularity as an alternative to "global warming". I'm not claiming Frank Luntz invented the words "climate" and "change" or that he was the first person to put them together or to realize that climate does, in fact, change.

In any case, as I said, I think it's a much better term (and I don't think it sounds "less scary" at all; "warming" actually sounds kinda nice). In fact, it's probably the only useful thing Frank Luntz has done in his entire life.

As to your second paragraph: duh! That's pretty much the definition of average, isn't it...? And in any case your wording is misleading: the parts that get hotter don't need to get "warmer still" than the parts getting colder. If 90% of the globe rises by 1 degree and 10% of the globe falls by 8 degrees, the global average temperature has gone up, although the highest local increase was 1/5th of the decrease.

And yes, the total energy content of the entire system is rising.


RE: slick
By Michael01x on 4/14/2008 3:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now the UN is trying to ease us over into Climate Change instead of Global Warming since they can't explain a damn thing.

Actually the term "climate change" was coined by a Republican politician, Frank Luntz, as a PR effort to soften the discussion of "global warming", which, in his opinion, sounded too frightening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio


Continue insulting our inteligence
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2008 3:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming." Adam Scaife, lead scientist at the UK's Hadley Center for Climate Modeling, says he's confident that "within a few years" a new record temperature will be set.


Same old BS. So when temps go up a degree or so one year it means the sky is falling and global warming is a fact. When they go down despite their predictions, its time to slow down and look at the big picture ? Just wait a " few years " for that record high !!! Hes confident !!!

I think people are finally getting the real big picture : Temps go up and down and always have been, and nobody really knows why.




RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By computergeek485 on 4/6/2008 8:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
Has anyone considered that it might not be us thats causing the problem and that it could be outside sources such as solar activity. Like the fact that up until recently the sun has been in a hightened state of activity and that it is currently going down in activity and will continue to do so for the next couple decades.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By jbartabas on 4/6/2008 12:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it's been considered, studied and quantified for a while now. For most scientists, the numbers don't add up, particularly for the second part of the 20th century. There are some scientists suggesting that the Sun impact on climate is underestimated, though. However, they don't necessarily discard or minimize the impact of 'other' factors. There's an article about it in the March issue of physics today. The whole issue is discussed in the IPCC reports.

As for the 'hightened state of activity', TSI variability for the past decades can't explain the increase in temperature for the last decades (since the mid 70's).


By 16nm on 4/8/2008 1:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Re-read what the original poster quoted.
quote:
WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud chalks up the cooling to La Nina effects, and says it doesn't mean global warming isn't a serious problem. "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."


The planet has been in a warming trend since the last great ice age. Infact, it has been in a warming trend for millions of years.

Al Gore is a doofus.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By Schrag4 on 4/7/2008 6:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
What problem? I still have yet to see any evidence that higher temperatures are a bad thing. If I remember correctly, there's evidence to suggest that significantly higher temperatures than what we're seeing even now could benefit us greatly.

From my perspective Gore and his followers have at least the following 2 things dead wrong:
1. That we're capable of causing any climate change.
2. That a rise in temperature would cause any significant 'problems'.


By dluther on 4/11/2008 2:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still have yet to see any evidence that higher temperatures are a bad thing.

One particular aspect of climate change that will adversely affect humans -- although not necessarily you in particular -- is the rapid retreat of mountain glaciers due to increased temperature. Mountain glaciers that are the primary fresh water sources for large segments of the population, including the glaciers of Mt. Ranier (http://glaciers.pdx.edu/MRNP/Res00.html ), Mt. Kilimanjaro (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/09... ) and many, many others are already rapidly retreating. (http://earthtrends.wri.org/images/glacier_retreat_... )

Also of note is that some Antarctic glaciers melting at an uncharacteristically rapid pace:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/08022...

These alone can account for some of the floods already experienced (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080411/ap_on_sc/chile... ) and droughts (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/kilicores.htm ) which climate researchers have predicted based on core sample analysis near such water source glaciers.

Ultimately, it doesn't take a great leap of logic to conclude that once water source glaciers are gone, the areas supplied by these glaciers will face a drought.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080411/ap_on_re_eu/cl...

Socio-economic impacts are just as important, as downstream resources reliant on glacial melt water such as crops and livestock will displace large sections of population, creating massive refugee crises for those areas not affected.

quote:
1. That we're capable of causing any climate change.

If human activity can produce a cooling effect, namely by the radiating of heat into space due to anthropogenic aerosols in the atmosphere (http://scienceweek.com/2006/sw060120-6.htm ) then one must disavow themselves of the notion you bring in point 1. And if human activity can lower temperature, then it also stands to reason that human activity can also increase the temperature.

quote:
2. That a rise in temperature would cause any significant 'problems'.

Let's ignore the more alarmist predictions such as rising oceans, more frequent and intense storms such as tornadoes and hurricanes, and concentrate on the more logical, practical and observable issues such as the ones I've presented.

While you can say these are problems are 'insignificant', to those affected, even tangentially, these situations are cataclysmic.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By jbartabas on 4/6/2008 5:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
A similar argument could be made regarding the 'skeptics' i.e.:
The skeptics remind you all the time that temperature records and the global increase is only ~100 years old, and that we would need more time to make sure that something is happening. But let the temperature drop for a few months and here they go with their 'proof' that there is no GW.

quote:
When they go down despite their predictions, its time to slow down and look at the big picture ?


And for your information, there is no global climate prediction preventing the global temperature to decrease at a scale of a few month or a few years.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 10:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And for your information, there is no global climate prediction preventing the global temperature to decrease at a scale of a few month or a few years.

This is a nonsensical statement. A temperature prediction that predicts the temperature could rise or fall is a worthless prediction. Obviously a prediction doesn't prevent anything from happening--its just a prediction. But if a prediction predicts one thing, and another thing occurs, the prediction is flawed.

Show me one climate prediction model from the IPCC that predicted in 1998 that temperatures would decline for the next 10 years.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 11:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a nonsensical statement. A temperature prediction that predicts the temperature could rise or fall is a worthless prediction. Obviously a prediction doesn't prevent anything from happening--its just a prediction. But if a prediction predicts one thing, and another thing occurs, the prediction is flawed.


It is nonsense because you have not understood it. Now if you read in context (2008 being colder than 2007), maybe you'll figure out what was meant.

quote:
Show me one climate prediction model from the IPCC that predicted in 1998 that temperatures would decline for the next 10 years.


It is inaccurate to say that temperature declined for the last 10 years. Here is a projection made in 1988 (note that there is a lag in assumed volcanic eruption).

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol103/issue39/images/...

If you are observant, you'll find the answer to the first point, about climate projections exhibiting a decrease in T for a year or more. You can note also that the high frequency variability is not well captured by the model, so what you call a decrease since 1998 due to an exceptionally large warming that year, is not reproduced simply because the peak itself is not there.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 12:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you are observant, you'll find the answer to the first point, about climate projections exhibiting a decrease in T for a year or more.

I had asked for a prediction made since the temperature spike in 1998, but I'll run with the 1988 one. Although it accounts for periodic temperature dips from one to three years, it definitely doesn't predict that the temperature from any one year remains the high temp for a decade (discounting Scenario C, which assumes a "drastic curtailment of emissions").

quote:
It is nonsense because you have not understood it.

I did not understand it because you didn't write what you meant. You said the predictions do not "prevent" cooling, but what I think you meant to say was that the predictions predict short-term variable cooling over a long-term warming trend. Its not my burden to figure out what you really meant to say when your words say something different.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 12:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I did not understand it because you didn't write what you meant.[...] Its not my burden to figure out what you really meant to say when your words say something different.


I think I did, but that's the problem here: my general opinion about that is that language is ambiguous in nature, and this kind of misunderstanding are unavoidable. This is why it is interesting to debate instead of having a monologue, that helps to clarify points. So sorry if I was unclear.

quote:
I had asked for a prediction made since the temperature spike in 1998, but I'll run with the 1988 one. Although it accounts for periodic temperature dips from one to three years, it definitely doesn't predict that the temperature from any one year remains the high temp for a decade (discounting Scenario C, which assumes a "drastic curtailment of emissions").


First you'll note that the GISS temperature data do not support your statement that 1998 was the warmest T for a decade. Now if you discard 2005 as being warmer 1998 (eg Hadley data), you are just stating that GCM do not render high-frequency variability, and you are putting undue weight on one particular year. If you'd accept the idea that one isolated yearly average have some validity in the interpretation on long term trends, then you could also say that the large and fast increase in T between 1996 and 1998 (2 years) has not been projected by models, and therefore we will surely observe much faster warming than projected. Again, if we go back to few years averages, the trends are consistent, at least for now ...


By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 1:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not disputing that 1998 represented an anomalous year, and I'm not claiming that any climate model accounts for such high-frequency variability. But the jump in temperature in 1998 was still not so extreme that the climate model you linked to would not have "caught up" and exceeded the temperature after a decade. In other words, there wasn't ten years worth of temperature gains in 1998, so by 2008, according to the model we should start seeing temperatures rising above the 1998 level.

Keep in mind that I'm not even arguing that global warming isn't occuring. My point is that the present temperatures we are seeing was not predicted by the old climate models, particularly given that GHG emissions have significantly increased in the last decade.


RE: Continue insulting our inteligence
By werepossum on 4/8/2008 1:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a nonsensical statement. A temperature prediction that predicts the temperature could rise or fall is a worthless prediction.


Not at all. It's been worth tens of millions a year to Al Gore.


By phattyboombatty on 4/8/2008 2:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
touche


By clovell on 4/14/2008 2:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
How about for a decade (1998-2009)? At what point do you recalibrate your conclusions in light of the data?


By Scottar on 4/6/2008 4:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
This Scientist has a very damning paper against the IPCC's claim that CO2 emissions are accelerating warming. It has very good graphics and claims. The Scientist is one of the most cited in climatology and has gotten more awards then Hansen of NASA.

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/Earth_rec...




By BernardP on 4/6/2008 7:26:18 AM , Rating: 2

Here is another report by the Non-intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Well worth printing and reading while sitting in your favorite chair:

http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835....


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/6/2008 12:37:06 PM , Rating: 3
Neither of the above papers have been published in a peer reviewed journal, FYI.


By BernardP on 4/6/2008 7:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
True.The paper by Syun-Ichi Akasofu is quite objective and factual. It is only dated Feb 27 2008. It would not be surprising to see a version of it published in a peer-reviewed publication.

The document from the NIPCC (Fred Singer and co-conspirators) is more of an editorial-type document. It quotes many peer-reviewed studies however. It is an alternative Summary for Policymakers.

Speaking of which, have the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and its Summary for Policymakers been peer-reviewed?


By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 10:44:20 AM , Rating: 2
The assessment report is, I don't think the summary for policymakers is. I guess the latter has to be approved by politics, so it probably 'loses' a lot of its substance before everyone agrees on it.


By ElFenix on 4/7/2008 3:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
not that peer review doesn't have it's own problems


By 1078feba on 4/8/2008 10:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

Isn't that the crux of the problem here? The mind-bending asshattery of the politically motivated "scientists" with Messianic complexes doing everything they can to bend us to their will.

Chicken Little, we hardly knew ye...


AGW Hypocrisy
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 10:30:21 AM , Rating: 3
Global warming proponents explain away the projected cooling of temperatures in 2008 by stating that its not appropriate to look at any one year, while in the same breath continuously bashing everyone over the head with the 1998 temperatures.

They say we need to look at long periods of time to properly assess global warming, but don't look too far back because then we are cooling.

Anytime somebody points out an area of the world that is seeing cooling effects, like record snowfall or low temps, the global warming proponents criticize them, stating that its not appropriate to look at any one specific area in the world. Yet, they release monumental press releases and proclaim disaster from the tops of mountains anytime any data shows warming effects in particular regions of the world.




RE: AGW Hypocrisy
By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 10:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global warming proponents explain away the projected cooling of temperatures in 2008 by stating that its not appropriate to look at any one year,


It is appropriate if you really want to look at one year ... then you will see that almost half of the years for the last 150 were cooler than the previous one. That did not prevent warming. So what would you conclude about 2008 being cooler than 2007? Why should it be an embarrassment for GW theory when this has been happening all along the last 150 years?

quote:
while in the same breath continuously bashing everyone over the head with the 1998 temperatures.


I don't think anybody is focusing only on 1998, at least not among scientists. What is important is that the latest years have been significantly warmer than the last 150 years, even if the record goes back to 1998. 1998 is definitely a year worth studying as it is the warmest since ~150 years, but it is certainly not the silver bullet of GW and is obviously recognized as exceptional, even in the context of warming.

And how does the warmest year on record since 150 years compare to 2008 being colder than 2007 anyway? At least if 2008 was going to be the coldest on record, or for the least the coldest since ~1960-1990, you could have a beginning of a point. But for that you'll have to wait for the final numbers ...


RE: AGW Hypocrisy
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 11:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should it be an embarrassment for GW theory when this has been happening all along the last 150 years?

I don't recall saying anything about a cooling year being an embarrassment. I agree that you shouldn't look at any one year to analyze long-term climate trends. My point was that god-forbid a year is warmer than the previous year every news publication is full of stories proclaiming the woes of global warming because of it.

quote:
And how does the warmest year on record since 150 years compare to 2008 being colder than 2007 anyway?

Not much difference in my opinion. Again, you are still looking at two isolated examples. Anytime in the history of the Earth, whether cooling or warming, if you look at a 150 year period, one lucky year gets to be the warmest. Now it just so happens that the warmest year the past 150 years, 1998, happens to fall in the recent past, which gives it all sorts of attention and ammunition for global warming claims. But as it falls further and further into the past without any new higher-temp years, will those same global warming proponents switch their story and claim that cooling is occurring? If, in 2025, 1998 is still the warmest year on record, it will be extremely difficult for anyone to claim global warming is occurring on any significant scale.


RE: AGW Hypocrisy
By jbartabas on 4/7/2008 12:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so I guess we are more or less on the same wavelength actually (let's say that the 'non-sensical' characterization did not set me in a good mood ;-) ).

I do agree with the year-by-year analysis being close to non-sense in terms of general trend.

I do agree with the problem of some media over-reacting to some punctual facts. Although 1998 was an important year anyway (scientifically), but not everything could be said about it (see last point).

I do (obviously) agree that if in 2025, it happens that 1998 is still the warmest year on record (i.e. T has stalled or even decreased over ~3 decades), then GCM projection have a big problem. Now will it be with models themselves, or scenarios (i.e. change in solar activity, major change in volcanic activity), something would have to change. But I do not see anything suggesting that will happen for now.

I disagree that 1998 should be regarded the same as any year marked by a decrease. Again, what will make 2008 exceptional (and potentially comparable to 1998) or not will be the amplitude of the decrease. Now of course, as interesting as 1998 could be, one should not base the GW argument on its sole amplitude (I do not know if it has been made, though). That means for example that computing an increase or a decrease between two unique years wouldn't make much sense (eg. the warming is Xdeg/decade because T in 1998 was that much higher than T in 1960). But as far as I know, T curves are usually smoothed for mitigating this high frequency variability (and the 'normal', or reference, is itself an average over a few decades).

PS: and what I meant in the first place with the 'models not preventing a decrease' is that models project climate variability (less than observed as far as I know, but they do), that can make T decrease from one year to the other one at several occasions, even if the general trend is up. So the concept 2008 being colder than 2007 is nothing new (in the real world or in the models) and does not tell much about GW going on or not.


RE: AGW Hypocrisy
By phattyboombatty on 4/7/2008 12:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
PS: and what I meant in the first place with the 'models not preventing a decrease' is that models project climate variability (less than observed as far as I know, but they do), that can make T decrease from one year to the other one at several occasions, even if the general trend is up.

Yeah, if you see my other reply that is what I figured. The "nonsensical" characterization was probably out of line. Sorry about that. It does bug me though when somebody writes something that means one thing, and then when you interpret it as written, they get all upset because they "meant" something else (obvious typos excepted).


RE: AGW Hypocrisy
By onelittleindian on 4/7/2008 7:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do (obviously) agree that if in 2025, it happens that 1998 is still the warmest year on record (i.e. T has stalled or even decreased over ~3 decades), then GCM projection have a big problem
Rofl, so even if it keeps getting colder for the next 30 years, you're still going to believe in GW, and won't say any more than it "has a problem"? Talk about the power of faith!


Some La Nina information
By AlexWade on 4/6/2008 6:44:38 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitori...
I've been following this La Nina carefully because where I live it has been hot and dry because of the La Nina. And I hate hot. I knew it would be that way, almost every La Nina makes the Southeastern US warm and dry. This is actually a strong and persistent La Nina. Last autumn, they said it would be over by December. Then it became March. And now not until summer is over.

A while back, someone from the Church of Al Gore said to me in one was Michael Asher's blogs that El Ninos are related to global warming; well are La Ninas related to global cooling? Or maybe, just maybe, we know less that what we think? Maybe, just maybe, we should stop trying to make the facts fit our beliefs and let the facts shape our beliefs. I rather like that last part.




RE: Some La Nina information
By masher2 (blog) on 4/6/2008 6:49:14 PM , Rating: 5
It's a fact that we certainly don't understand the underlying causes of ENSO effects. The problem with chalking up all the cooling trend to La Nina is that heat cannot be destroyed. La Nina can't "erase" heat, it has to move it from the surface to deeper ocean waters...and so far, our monitoring of those waters hasn't detected any rise in temperatures there either (an upcoming blog will deal with this issue as well).


RE: Some La Nina information
By AlexWade on 4/6/2008 9:26:07 PM , Rating: 1
Feel free to use the line "Church of Al Gore" because environmentalism is a religion.

But make sure people don't miss my point. If A = B, then not A = not B. You can't have it both ways; either global temperatures affect El Nino/La Nina or they don't. You cannot say global warming is causing El Nino then say La Nina is not caused by global cooling.

And my other point, stop trying to make the data fit your beliefs.


RE: Some La Nina information
By clovell on 4/14/2008 2:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
Right on.


spin
By MadMaster on 4/5/2008 9:55:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The cool spell means global temperatures have been on the decline for a full ten years, since early 1998.


Year 1998 peak hot year, El Nino.

A 10 year decline to the statistically incompetent.




RE: spin
By grenableu on 4/5/2008 10:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
There have been 3 El Ninos since 1998, so what's your point?


RE: spin
By lompocus on 4/6/2008 3:17:03 AM , Rating: 2
Really? I live exactly where El Nino is supposed to hit and I don't recall anything remotely as strong as any El Nino from 1998 and prior years.

His Point: El Nino 1998 marks the peak height of the global climate warming, as evidenced by our lack of live-threatening west-coastal typhoons.


By lownslowav8r on 4/11/2008 3:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090013

Title of the article:

Fox's E.D. Hill falsely claimed that "U.N. meteorologists" say "the planet may actually cool off for the 10th year in a row"

Amazing how this all so...coordinated.

This article goes into the actual data and explains the lies we are hearing, such as sunspots are causing all of this, or that the recent fluctuations in temperature puts us back to temperatures 100 years ago.

Oh how I wish this were true, then our childern wouldn't have to deal with the mess we have made. But it ain't so...
Enjoy the truth.




By jbartabas on 4/11/2008 4:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
All of that is actually obvious.

I don't know where some people got the idea that 'Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming', but they clearly haven't looked at the data.

First there hasn't been twelve-month drop, but more important, certainly, not enough cooling to wipe out a century of warming.

As for the 10th year in a row of cooling ... well that's not what's in the data ...


This just in:
By jhinoz on 4/6/2008 11:12:53 AM , Rating: 1
Scientists / infomaticians draw conclusions from analysis of gathered data. Aforementioned conclusions hotly debated on emotional / factual grounds.

To oversimplifying things, as i see it, we (humans) need cheap energy that isn't going to produce so much pollution that it kills us in the process. Can we please take stock of current technologies, pick one that best suits the requirement and get on with it?

I'm now going to go, do my job, do a good job, earn some cash and put some money back in the economy. Because, this is the only thing I can personally do to imrpove my situation when i wake up in the morning.

If more people could just get over it emotionally, pick what works (on the facts, not what makes them feel good) and get on with the task at hand the human race as a whole would be a heckofalot better off.

Thank you and goodnight, from one way pissed off aussie.




RE: This just in:
By Jim28 on 4/6/2008 1:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
What really bothers me the most about AGW is the people who promote it. Especially those who are thoroughly indoctronited with it. Most of them are wealthy or are not in a position in which they must worry about the necessities of life.(Meaining housing, food, transport for work, electricity) However they have no trouble making life harder on those who have to worry about the neccessities by making things more expensive by imposing taxation or more regulation that doesn't hurt themselves to much or they simply flat don't practice what they preach. (AKA Al Gore.) You want to reach the common person that has common sense? Practice what you preach. Don't be flying everywhere all over the world, don't have multiple homes or masions etc.etc and say no one else can have them. Basicaly I got mine, you can't have yours. As an American that grew up very poor and made something of myself, that just pisses me off! How about turn the lights off in LA, NY, DC, and selected European cities for one week and see how many people would then forget all about global warming.


The important point
By grenableu on 4/6/2008 11:48:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Warming may resume in future years [but] is self-evidently less than official forecasts, and very likely to be harmless.
That's the important point. Even if the planet does start to warm up again, there's no way it'll be anywhere near as much as what the alarmists predicted. Meaning GW isn't any sort of crisis at all.




RE: The important point
By Segerstein on 4/6/2008 5:02:12 PM , Rating: 1
I know, but the agnostic liberals need something to believe in. And there's also a lot of morality behind GW.


Carbon credits for sale!
By professor1942 on 4/6/2008 5:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hi I have 10,000 carbon credits for sale. I bought them from Al Gore last year for $10 each, and I want to sell the whole lot now for $5. Email me if you're interested.




Global Cannibalism
By nstott on 4/6/2008 9:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Forget about global warming. The new trendy future cataclysm is global cannibalism (LOL):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54




I See What you Did There.
By clovell on 4/14/2008 1:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
> The cool spell means global temperatures have been on the decline for a full ten years, since early 1998... WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud chalks up the cooling to La Nina effects.

Right, because the current La Nina has persisted since 1998 - right? It must have spawned all those killer hurricanes in the 2004 & 2005 seasons, eh?

I can just see these idiots running around like a clip out of Blazing Saddles -'Quick, gentlemen! We've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs!'




Temperature data from UAH
By Michael01x on 4/14/2008 4:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Graphs of satellite temperature data from UAH.

Temperature data from 1978 to present
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh103/scentofpi...

Temperature data from 1978 to present, with 1998 removed