Last updated at 7:21 PM on 13th October 2009
In the freezing foothills of Montana, a distinctly bitter blast of revolution hangs in the air.
And while the residents of the icy city of Missoula can stave off the -10C chill with thermals and fires, there may be no easy remedy for the wintry snap’s repercussions.
The temperature has shattered a 36-year record. Further into the heartlands of America, the city of Billings registered -12C on Sunday, breaking the 1959 barrier of -5C.
Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains.
Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change.
But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics.
According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth’s hottest recorded year was 1998.
If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.
Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man’s abuse of the environment.
Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon – global cooling.
The evidence for both remains inconclusive, which is unlikely to help the legions of world leaders meeting in Copenhagen in December to negotiate a new climate change deal.
There is no doubt the amount of man-made carbon dioxide, the gas believed to be responsible for heating up the planet, has increased phenomenally over the last 100 years.
For the final few decades of the 20th century and as the atmosphere’s composition changed, scientists recorded the planet was warming rapidly and made a positive correlation between the two.
But then something went wrong. Rather then continuing to soar, the Earth’s temperature appeared to stabilise, smashing all conventional predictions.
The development seemed to support the view of climate change cynics who claimed global warming was simply a natural cycle and not caused by man.
Some doubters believe that the increase was actually down to the amount of energy from the Sun, which provides 98 per cent of the Earth’s warmth.
Sun or sea? The importance of the ocean’s cooling and warming cycles are now under serious consideration as a key factor in global temperatures
Previously, the fluctuating amount of radiation given out by the sun was thought to play a large role in the climate.
But Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, who was part of the team to win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change, studied solar output – the heat leaving the sun’s surface – and cosmic ray intensity over the last 40 years, and compared those figures with global average surface temperature.
He told the BBC: ‘Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity.’
Scientists have intensified the search for alternative explanations
Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University believes the key to the connumdrum may be the temperature of the world’s seas.
Figures show the Pacific Ocean has been cooling over the last few years, and Easterbrook’s research shows a correlation between this and global temperatures.
He says the oceans have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically, known as Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
And after a 30-year heating cycle in the 1980s and 1990s, pushing temperatures above average, we are now moving into a cooler period.
Professor Easterbrook said: ‘In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
‘The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.’
In Alberta, Canada (above), temperatures dropped to -16C on Monday, breaking the day’s previous record, from 1928, by about three degrees
His figures show that the global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), stressed the impact of the ocean currents in the North Atlantic – a phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation.
He believes we may be in a period of cooling – but that it will be temporary before global warming reasserts itself.
He said the NAO may have been responsible for some of the rapid rise in temperatures of the last three decades.
‘But how much? The jury is still out,’ he said.
So is the sun really going down on global warming?
The Met Office is not convinced.
They incorporate solar and oceanic cycles into their models, and they say that – even if there are periods of slower warming, or temporary cooling, the long-term trend in global temperatures is still on the up.
h/t to a jones
Read the article at the Daily Mail here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Brilliant. Global warming will reassert itself when the cooling ends.
“The Met Office is not convinced.
They incorporate solar and oceanic cycles into their models, and they say that – even if there are periods of slower warming, or temporary cooling, the long-term trend in global temperatures is still on the up.”
Honestly. Just what do they base that on? Faith?
What is so nice is to see is that the Daily Mail does not suggest a catastrophic freeze – they actually talk rationally that everything could just possibly,perhaps, maybe, after all just be naturally getting cool!
What a breath of cool fresh air….ahhhh.
‘connumdrum’? Hmmmm. Must be the English spelling.
================
They make one error, however. The given “top 10” numbers are for the US, not the globe.
Slowly, ever so slowly doubt is begining to enter the religion of Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming. Many political and science careers will be wrecked
Hmm …
The Daily Mail is not generally known for investigative journalism.
So I am wondering where Mr or Ms Reporter got the story from?
It reads like a well-informed and well-balanced press release. But released by whom, and why?
And if Mr or Ms Reporter did research and write the story all by themselves, then why not give them the by-line, and The Mail the kudos?
Curiouser and curiouser …
I can’t help but wonder if this media U-Turn is from the effects of the Enchanted Larch of Yamal. Those reporters don’t understand the statistical details of the McIntyre revelation, but they know there are too few trees for the study to have much meaning. Rather than try to explain it to their readers, they can start to promote the skeptical points that they do understand, having been subjected to them now for a year or two. The recent cooling helps, too.
I’m waiting for Andy Revkin in 3-2-1.
============================================
I’m happy to see some articles countering warming alarmism, but this article has some problems:
“…turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon – global cooling.”
No, let’s just let the climate be. I don’t want governments concerning themselves with global cooling either.
“‘Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity.’”
No? What about the possibility, not yet totally disproven, of solar modulation of cosmic radiation affecting cloud formation.
“…virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.’”
Virtually assured? A little overly certain, no?
Kim (20:08:14)
Nope, t’aint no English spell’n.
I think the AGW rose is now without petals, and it doesn’t even have a good set of hips
for the winter…
And one question. Where does the other 2% come from (“the Sun, which provides 98 per cent of the Earth’s warmth.”)?
And last time I looked WRITING is spelt with two Is.
But whoever the reporter was the homework is better than the BBC, and refers to NASA for some data: such as the US numbers even if it did not say they were US ones.
Cut the chap or chapess a little slack: it’s a pretty workmanlike job after all the rubbish we have been reading.
Only trouble is I don’t know whether it was in the print edition, but I note it is marked as an editor’s pick on the website.
Kindest Regards.
“Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, who was part of the team to win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change”
“He told the BBC: ‘Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity.”
That’s one small prize for Forster, one giant mistake for mankind
a jones (20:25:08) :
But whoever the reporter was the homework is better than the BBC,
—————
I think it’s quite a poor article. The author could have done a lot better. The US vs. global records mistake is pretty sophomoric, and why didn’t they feature the Antarctic? The fact that it is better than the BBC is more of a sad commentary on the BBC, than praise for the Daily Mail.
Straying slightly off topic here, can any of you Brits tell me if the BBC is a propaganda outlet for champagne socialism, or is it a lap dog for whoever is in power? Also, will Cameron be able to replace the individuals responsible for their idiotic AGW position over the past few years? Does the BBC report to the government?
I know that Cameron spouts on about AGW, but after he’s got the AGW sheeple vote, I assume he can change position due to the cooling. Are the individuals at the BBC thinking about their future salaries, and hedging?
Global Warming has never stopped… because the Goracle did not say so.
“Bret (20:24:36) :
And one question. Where does the other 2% come from (”the Sun, which provides 98 per cent of the Earth’s warmth.”)?”
The other 2% comes from radioactive decay in the earth’s crust and core.
You really notice it in deep mines, some of which require air conditioning to keep the air cool enough for the miners to be productive.
“even if there are periods of slower warming, or temporary cooling, the long-term trend in global temperatures is still on the up.”
I have no problem agreeing that the long term trend may be up, I just have a problem with the degree to which it will rise due to GHG, let alone man-caused GHG’s. The cooling to come means that a major portion of the warming to date has been caused by natural variation rather than GHG which means any further warming due to GHG’s won’t be salute worthy either.
Some thousands of years ago Earth was experiencing a glacial episode. Then, about 17,000 years ago the massive ice sheets began to melt and sea level rose. Why? In any case, as time went by and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans responded to the interglacial environment there came periods of less or more warmth, unexplained during the events and mostly still. As the interglacial period lengthens there seem to be natural swings in some physical variables causing cooling and warming to be overlaid on the general warming-recovery from that long ago glaciation.
Modern technologies are seemingly now helping to explain some of these ups and downs. I don’t sense anyone really knows why the last great glaciation occurred nor why it ended. Has whatever ended it now changed? Who thinks so? What is the accepted reason? If it hasn’t ended then Earth ought to continue to warm – until those things (what?) change.
Thus, if this or future years are warmer than many in the past, so what? If physical processes of a cyclical nature bring the temperature down for a few years or a few decades, why would we not expect those to cycle through and then for it to continue warming?
To promote CO2 as the driving force of these processes shows a lack of understanding of the historical records and the physics involved.
Kim
“The Enchanted Larch of Yamal”
Love it. I see a picture coming on.
Enchanted Larch of Yamal to al Gore: With this tree-ring I thee wed.
🙂
“In Alberta, Canada (above), temperatures dropped to -16C on Monday, breaking the day’s previous record, from 1928, by about three degrees”
But a week before we had +34C breaking a daily record high.
That’s Alberta for you.
“kim (20:19:33) :
Enchanted Larch of Yamal.”
Reminds me of a Monty Python sketch.
mkurbo (20:33:40) :
“Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, who was part of the team to win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change”
“He told the BBC: ‘Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity.”
That’s one small prize for Forster, one giant mistake for mankind
I’m looking forward to Piers Corbyn’s revelations later this month on his solar prediciton method. Perhaps Anthony could cover that and we can do a “Piers review” at the end of the month. 🙂
philincalifornia (20:50:45) :
In general, the BBC is regarded as something of a bastion of liberal left political correctness.
As to whether Cameron is likely to replace the individuals responsible for their idiotic AGW position over the past few years, the answer is “no, he won’t. Happily, the government doesn’t control the BBC to anything like that extent. If it could, the BBC would be far worse than it is. Mind you, there’s considerable doubt over whether Cameron would do anything such as you suggest, even if he could. This, after all, is the man who installed a wind turbine on the roof of his house in Central London. I think it may take something stronger than a dose of global warming reality to bring him to his senses. Maybe a huge structural deficit in the nation’s economy might do it, after all, that’s what he’ll inherit, assuming he wins the general election next year.
“They incorporate solar and oceanic cycles into their models, and they say that – even if there are periods of slower warming, or temporary cooling, the long-term trend in global temperatures is still on the up.”
Of course the long term trend is up, at least since the start of this inter-glacial. We also know 100% for certain that all but 20 of the last 30 years of this warm trend had no coincidence with CO2. That’s like no coincidence for 99.999% of the last 10-20,000 years!