January 2008 – 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months

hello, i have just finished an assignment for university on climate change and as a final note i left the graph from the Hadly centre as a last thought. it is clear to see that we don’t really have a clue about global warming, and although compelling as the link with increased Co2 to increased temperature is i think that we are not giving the planet enough credit. without sounding to hippy i would like to say, inst it a good thing in some respects that the mass majorities think that climate change is caused by us and the release of co2 emissions? if they cut back on cars and high emission vehicles and production lines and we start to become more sustainable throughout the whole world, surely it is a good thing. correct me if i am wrong.
At the moment it seems that it is just another thing to argue about, with people who like to argue leaving strong comments, either for or against, even on here without weighing up both sides of the story. There is now enough evidence in both arguments to pretty much outweigh each other so people that seem to be one sided ( on either side) are very incoherent and narrow minded people who like to argue. people who find that they want to argue with me or have angry or abusive comebacks are the exact people i am pointing out.
so just have a think, i am not a decisive word and do not pass final judgement, and ask what do you know aout climate change?

Hi Alex,
Your points are well taken that there are plenty of arguments plus some narrow minded and abusive people “on both sides”,
Both supporters of the suggestion of potentially alarming anthropogenic global warming and those who are rationally skeptical of this notion should be able to carry on a rational discussion of the issues involved.
Unfortunately, this has become more than just a scientific debate.
It has become a political discussion, as well as a debate about far-reaching policy decisions that will affect everyone on this planet and will involve hundreds of billions of dollars.
There are some who will benefit personally and financially from some of the proposed “solutions”, and therefore have a vested interest.
There are some on the other side that also have a vested interest.
And, in far too many instances, it has become a media-fed wave of hysteria, with the media also benefitting.
Scientists are scrambling for grant money, and the well-known axiom in publicly funded research is “no crisis = no funding”.
Activists on both sides are not above using the appeal to emotion (guilt as well as fear) rather than to reason in their argumentation.
Unfortunately, history has shown us again and again that politicians frequently resort to the use of fear in order to gain public support for a particular political agenda (be it a war, a new set of taxes, new legislation that restricts personal freedom or something else).
It is unfortunate that a rational discussion of very important issues such as those listed below is not possible without getting into the controversies surrounding the AGW debate:
· Conservation of energy at all levels (domestic, industrial, etc.)
· Elimination of waste at all levels
· Elimination of real air pollution (not CO2)
· Elimination of water and land pollution
· Control of tropical rain forest destruction
· Programs to increase forests in temperate zones
· Reduction of dependence on imported petroleum from politically unstable regions
· Improved fuel efficiency of automobiles
· Development of cost effective alternate fuels
· Improved and expanded energy efficient public transportation systems
· Upgrading or replacement of low thermal efficiency power generation plants
· Expanding power generation from non-fossil fuel sources (including nuclear)
· Development of new fast breeder / thorium fission technology
· Development of fusion technology
· Etc.
As a university student, I believe you will do the right thing by keeping an open mind, avoiding emotional argumentation, weighing the evidence provided on both sides of the factual arguments on these and many more pertinent issues and coming to your own opinions on what is really happening.
And, if you are lucky, you may be able to do something when you complete your studies that will “make a difference”.
Max

Max:
That had to be one of the best statements I have read on this whole issue. Congrats, you did well.
Unfortunatly the oder of human bovine excrement had pushed me over to the anti Gorean side of the argument.
I have recently heard on the news (Fox News Channel 04 Feb 2008) That some cities in California are putting a “Global Warming Tax” on gas. This is not to pay for global warming, it is to pay for unfunded programs. Thus the Global warming issue is now being used by governments to increase their tax income. Perhaps this is why so many governments are so interested in funding research into Global Warming.
What pushed me over the brink was an article in Yahoo news. Some “scientist” now says La Nina is the cause of Global cooling, and that in another five years we will go right back to Global Warming. I looked at the graphs of Global Warming. There is no hint of La Nina doing anything close to the cooling we have just experienced. No El Nina caused snow in China, or snow in Yemen, like it did last year. This El Nina argument is pure rubbish. But the Goreans will now use that rubbish to support their case.
Give us all a break. The pure nonsence that is coming from the Goreans has gone way over the top.
Count me in the anti-Gore camp.
I started out as just someone interested in finding out the truth. I have been so overwhelmed by the pure nonsense of the Goreans that I can only conclude that the “world is flat” camp actually has it right. CHK.

Chris,
You might be on to something there. If the earth is indeed flat, I think the greenhouse theory just might work!
Hagar

Isaaac Asimov said that if you held the earth in your hand, and then carefully wiped away the oceans, rivers and lakes, you would be left with a sphere that is much smoother than a billiard ball. We think that the ocean is so huge because we are so tiny.
Everest and the deep ocean trenches are mere imperfections on our home sphere.
There is much less lag in ocean temperatures than anyone believes. The sun is active and El Ninos flourish, warming earth and sea alike. The sun is quiet and La Nina, the ice queen, moves in.
Anyone who watches the animations of La Nina can see this cooling taking place. The earth and her oceans cool and warm depending on what our heat source, the sun, does.
Anthony I’d like to thank you for your pursuit of truth because you have brought so many wonderful minds along with you.

Looking at one isolated figure is foolish. Is this january temperature the global temperature of the atmosphere, the surface of the land, the oceans, or all water mass including the arctic, glaciers etc.
I noted the other day that NASA found that although the winter Arctic Ice extent was larger than last January, the perennial ice has reduced by a vast amount OVER WINTER.
There are currently food riots in 52 countries worldwide including India, Pakistan, Egypt, The Philippines, and due to four years of disastrous harvests (in central europe, australia, usa, south america, china) , the global stocks of food supply are down to something like 5 weeks. (5 weeks away from mass starvation on an unimaginable scale).
Salmon stocks have collapsed all the way up the west coast of the USA this year.
To me, this is beginning to look apocalyptic, and not 100 years time, not 10 years time, but now. Clutching at straws like one isolated figure going the right way is madness, and talk about what we can “afford” for the economy means is so out of whack it isn’t even on the right page as reality.

Hi Jeff
I have no doubt as to the imapct that human beings have on global warming by sheer weight of numbers we must have an impact.
Sadly the debate on climate change is not being served by hysteria (polar ice caps melt by next week etc etc)
But as to global food shortages I think demographics have more to play than global warming. Given current demographic growth in certain parts of Africa (Chad, Ethiopia Mali, Nigeria) as well as certain parts of asia allied with increased capita consumption in China it is inevitable that their will be food shortages. It is only a matter of time before widespread famine takes place regardless of global warming.
As for global warming is a mild warming (< 2C ) such a bad thing? Would not fuel consumption drop in the N.Hemisphere and crop yields increase? Can anybody point me to any agricultural analysis?
Now i have to get my hat and coat to go to the pub as it is bloody freezing outside.
JF

Hi JohnF,
Found some more stuff that may be of interest regarding CO2 and plant growth.
Some studies point out a side benefit from higher atmospheric CO2 levels on plant growth (photosynthesis):
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/762873-latuFL/webviewable/762873.PDF
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wn7766lt37p06jql/
http://www.astro.uu.se/~l/noworry.htm
Plants growing on land get their water from the ground, through the roots. They take up carbon dioxide through small holes, called stomata, in their leaves and stems. When the stomata are open, to let CO2 in, water may escape from the plant. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the less time the plant needs to have its stomata open to get enough carbon dioxide, and thus the less water it will lose. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more organic material may also be produced by the plant in any given time, of course, provided it also has enough of essential nutrients.
Thus an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has the two-fold advantage of allowing plants to grow faster and allowing them to use their water more efficiently.
This higher water use efficiency would be particularly important in arid and semi-arid areas where water use efficiency can be critical, particularly in the summer months.
So there can be some “greening” of arid regions and deserts with higher levels of atmospheric CO2, which could lead to even higher crop growth if properly managed.
Regards,
Max

Multidecadal Temperature Cycles Part 1
This site started out by pointing to the recent cooling trend, as observed by four different temperature records.
There has been a lot of “hoopla” lately about “global warming”. The latest records show that it has essentially stopped over the past 10 years, which skeptics are eager to point out, but supporters of the global warming hypothesis are crying “foul”. They tell us that it has not really stopped, and we are still at the highest levels of temperature anomaly today, therefore global warming is still a very real and apparent threat to humanity, the environment and our planet.
So let us see if we can cut through the hype from both sides and look at some facts.
Since global temperature records have been kept (based on the UK’s Hadley Centre), and we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age, there have been several multi-decadal cycles from warming to cooling, with an overall slight warming trend.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
Period Trend Years Increase
1860-1879 0.196 20 0.39
1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13
1906-1940 0.161 35 0.56
1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07
1976-1998 0.175 22 0.39
1998-2008 0.000 10 0.00
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade
Increase is linear change over period in degreesC
Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a very slight cooling trend.
This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken).
This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906.
Then came another warming trend until around 1940, followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976 (this one has been very briefly rationalized by IPCC, without any supporting evidence, as having been caused by anthropogenic aerosol emissions).
Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase from 1976 to 1998. This trend has gotten a lot of attention as evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW).
This trend appears to have reached a “plateau” from 1998 to today, in sharp contrast to the IPCC projections from model studies, which predicted a record rate of increase of 0.2 degrees C per decade for the first two decades in the 21st century.

Multidecadal Temperature Cycles Part 3
Whether or not the past 10 years are the beginning of a new “flat” or cooling cycle remains to be seen.
What is apparent, however, is:
-that temperatures have been in an overall slow rising trend since 1850
-that there are multidecadal swings from slight cooling to warming
-that the recent warming trend from 1976 to 1998 is not unusual when compared to earlier warming periods, which occurred prior to AGW
-that the impacts of various “forcing” components on the global average temperature are not as straightforward as IPCC would have us believe
-that the ability of climate models to predict temperature trends is limited

JM:
“(When you feel the heat of the sun on your face on a summers day – that’s infrared)”
That seems like a layman’s explaination for something that could be more scientific.
Most of the sun’s energy that reaches the earth surface is visible (peaks around 550nm=green light).
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/assets/images/2002/Nov-18-2002/solar_spectrum.jpg
Your skin absorbs most of this energy, making your skin warmer. So most of what you feel on a sunny day is not infrared.

Jauregui:
There is no “Peak Oil” crisis. Civilization will never run out of oil. Demand & price will find an equilibrium. And oil will never see an annual inflation-adjusted average of US$200/barrel either. Substitution (PV, wind, nuclear, etc) becomes economically advantageous well before we get to that price level.