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
Here we go again: Deep Solar Minimum Winter #3.
Record lows of early winter well outnumber record highs of summer, and they weigh even heavier on the minds of untold billions.
The world is watching. How can they not notice? AGW Climate Change has primed the weather watching pump, and man is a natural-born weather nut.
Plus the word’s out about the strain on agriculture and the widespread troubles with gardens.
However the Solar Minimum mechanism works, and that jury will be out for a long time if big breakthrus are not forthcoming, it is clearly not so much a linear correlation as it is an association with history.
The Arctic freezes up nicely, recovering, the Antarctic is bulging with ice, and winter finds many on the fence to hurl it’s icy breath at.
Syl (21:23:41) :
“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,
It is not. (In fairness, it depends on “how long long is” 😉
From 1880 to now is up, but from 12,000 years ago to now is down…
John F. Hultquist (21:28:36) : 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.
Um, the last glacial ended in a spike of warming that has been on a (roughly) 12,000 year slow trend downward. We have not been having a ‘general warming – recovery’, but a “pop and drop” and we’re in a slow drop phase. (With ripples, yes, but steadily colder, if slowly).
Take a look at the charts here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/how-long-is-a-long-temperature-history/
for a clue about how to best harvest cherries… and about which way a “long term trend” is really trending…
philincalifornia:
“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?”
It’s accused of all that and more, depending on the viewpoint of the ones doing the accusing. It’s also liberal and conservative and broadminded and oppressive – all at the same time apparently.
The BBC goes through fluctuations. It got an undeserved kicking from the government over completely true allegations that the non-existent evidence for WMDs was hyped and has been on the back foot ever since.
On the other hand there is far more material critical of the government (any government) on the BBC, not just in current affairs but in drama and comedy than any commercial station here (and far, far more, I get the impression, than on mainstream US channels).
philincalifornia:
” Also, will Cameron be able to replace the individuals responsible for their idiotic AGW position over the past few years?”
Not directly. The BBC is supposed to be independent of the government and both usually try to at least maintain this idea in public, but in reality the government ultimately holds the purse strings and usually approves the most senior board appointments, so no doubt a great deal of secretive pressure is exerted.
In any case, Cameron is pretty much as wedded to AGW as all the other major UK (and most European) politicians. Even if he could go on a wholesale firing rampage he would face justified accusations of hypocrisy.
If the consensus collapses during any spell in power he has, I don’t expect him to kick up too much of a fuss as it would raise the issue of his own words and actions – quite apart from Thatcher, also a Tory, being one of the main begetters of the whole mess.
But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics.
🙂
@ur momisugly Rereke Whakaaro:
Rereke wrote: “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?”
Compare the The Daily Mail article with the BBC article; the two articles are very similar in tone, style and even cite identical sources.
So, I’d say it’s a “press release” by the BBC.
So, then the question is why?
I suspect The Daily Mail noted how many internet “hits” the BBC article received in England and around the world:
And wanted “in” on the action.
Hey, I don’t care about the reason or who they copied it from, I’ll take whatever I can get because when people see an articulation of their own private concerns or doubts, as the case may be, it firms up their resolve and gives them more cover to spread the word at the “water cooler”.
“Hey, Joe, did you see that article in The Daily Mail where they said Global Warming is a bunch of BS?…”
George Bruce (19:58:23) :
“… the long-term trend in global temperatures is still on the up.”
Honestly. Just what do they base that on? Faith?
By looking at data that begins at the point when the earth is warming as it emerges from the Little Ice Age.
They don’t start at the point when Greenland was green approx.1000 years ago. That would show “long-term trend” still on the down.
evanmjones (20:12:12) :
They make one error, however.
Lots of errors afoot in global warming. Speaking of which… what about that Al Gore movie!
philincalifornia (20:50:45)
Lap dog!
Definitely a lap dog. It has long been recognised that the BBC is a left-of-centre political organisation with a simple policy to maintain that. All jobs are advertised in “The Grauniad” (the Guardian) a PC left wing broadsheet newspaper famous for its typographical errors, hence its name.
tallbloke (22:04:14) :
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. 🙂
I am hoping Anthony does a thread on it too. It does seem like important news. Also, I am curious about everyone’s thoughts on it.
Gordon Ford (20:55:31) :
“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.
So if Dr. Piers Forster’s statement that “Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity” is true, then the heat from the Earth’s core and crust is causing all the climate variation during this time?!
Neil Jones (22:44:33) :
philincalifornia (20:50:45)
It has long been recognised that the BBC is a left-of-centre
Left out left. Not close to centre.
noaaprogrammer (22:55:33) :
“Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity” is true, then the heat from the Earth’s core and crust is causing all the climate variation during this time?!
Excellent way to put it! Good on ya!
p.s. did you see “The Cloud Mystery” ?
This just looks like a new flavor AGW Cool-aide – AGW is real but the PDO is masking it.
Guess the fact that its cold might have tipped them off that the usual “were all gonna die” rhetoric is loosing its luster.
In that Daily Mail article there is another interesting link concerning historical climate sources:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218474/How-Captain-Cooks-ship-logs-helping-scientists-chart-global-climate-change.html
Now it’s gone pass CNN, there is no going back…
Ecotretas
The weather in the south-east of Australia (where most of the people live) is also not helping the AGW build-up to Copenhagen. Since late September Tasmania, Victoria & southern New South Wales have been buffeted by one cold front after another. One particularly cold and wet event unfortunately occurred on the Spring day reserved for the Australian Football Grand Final – this went down in the record books as the coldest ever played in its 110 year history. But they can at least be thankful that this pattern began in the very week that the ski season closed – and so just as media attention dropped off the white stuff. Snowcover in the hills that we call ‘Alps’ is at best tenuous, but in the 30 years since my first alpine Springs snow camp, I have only once (in 1981) seen an October snowcover like what I saw blanketing Mt Hotham this weekend. Over these 4 weeks there has been more days than not of snowfall, with 3 significant dumps – one happening as I write. Most dont see this, and the media prefers dust-storms, but, all the same, everyone in Melbourne is asking: Where’s our Spring? And so with the Government opposition (The Liberals) experiencing an internal revolt over carbon trading legislation – and the blocking of which still threatening to spark a general election – then…if DownUnder dont warm up soon…we might see the whole issue rapidly spiral into crisis around the time of Copenhagen. We can only wait…and ski.
Daily Mail also running a balanced story on recovering climate data from ships logs…
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218474/How-Captain-Cooks-ship-logs-helping-scientists-chart-global-climate-change.html
Syl (21:31:07) :
Enchanted Larch of Yamal to al Gore: With this tree-ring I thee wed.
So close, but not quite. –
“With this tree-ring I thee wood.”
If Cameron has a turbine on his roof, it may have nothing to do with his belief, or otherwise, in AGW. I’m a fairly robust sceptic, but I would do the same if I could sell surplus power into the grid and only draw out when the wind isn’t blowing. In other words, when it makes economic sense, I’ll do it. Nothing to do with belief systems.
Indeed. It says
“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”
Well this is what the warmers always say, and it is true…as far as it goes. The solar ‘ouput’ in warmth (lets call it ‘warmth’ to keep it simple) does not change much, but the solar magnetic field does (and so does UV light)
and its the magnetic field that is the root of this theory
see here
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1180849
AND HERE
the sun’s underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s,” says Posner. “This reduces natural shielding even more.”But any extra cosmic rays can have consequences”.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm
‘In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down’
The oceans are the majority heat store for the Earth (as I understand it), so what on earth is the heat flux associated with an ocean cooling? Where does the heat go when an ocean cools? If can’t be re-radiating unless AGW is rubbish. If it is transfering from surface to deep down, this can be measured.
Surely if we have a CO2 greenhouse effect, then there is a net radiation imbalance and heat inflow – where does this go? Something must be getting hot, so what is it? The atmosphere can only take a small amount of inbound heat
Nemetz, Greenland never was green. How come this myth is so tough??
I don’t think it is the Yamal tree that’s got the Britisch thinking. In contrast to the European continent they have had a pretty bad summer even for their standards. Now winter seems to arrive very early in Europe even two weeks earlier then last year when the alps had the longest lasting snow covering in 30years. Already after two years of solar minimum things are getting noticed…
philincalifornia (20:50:45)
Lap dog!
Definitely a lap dog. It has long been recognised that the BBC is a left-of-centre political organisation with a simple policy to maintain that. All jobs are advertised in “The Grauniad” (the Guardian) a PC left wing broadsheet newspaper famous for its typographical errors, hence its name.
As a life long listener and sometime viewer of the BBC output I would have to disagree with this statement. Artwest (22.24.08) gave a much more balanced representation on the BBC today. Yes, it has been completely off the wall with its MMGW stance and, despite the slightly questioning article the other day, is still piling in with heavily directed nonsense. (The radio programme Home Planet recently hosted a discussion on rising sea levels; as the conversation evolved the catastrophe got worse and, after a few moments the commentators were talking about the effects of a 30ft rise in sea levels as if it was going to happen tomorrow. In a news report on the popular Radio 4 Today programme last Saturday, a reporter gave the latest on the drought in Kenya. He stated that he country’s leaders are desperate for an “agreement” to come out of Copenhagen, because “climate change means it’s just getting warmer here year after year”. I never realised “global” warming could be applied so selectively!).
As much as the BBC have got MMGW so wrong (and it seems this is because of the bloody nose it received over WMD when it crossed “accepted” opinion), it is generally fair and balanced in news reporting. It has never been a government mouthpiece and, in all honesty, comments of left or right wing bias tend to arise from bodies or individuals who are not having their own biased points of view given prominence. Perhaps the best way to describe the corporation is “cosy middle class” and, given this, it tends to reflect middle class views and aspirations.
Hope this is helpful…
Reaction of the Met Office:
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.
They didn’t mention that their HadCM3 model does a poor job in representing any natural cycle (ENSO, PDO, NAO,…), see the frequency response of the model(s) for the ocean’s heat content by Barnett e.a. (Figure S1):
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1112418/DC1/1
As they underestimate the influence of natural cycles, the model overestimates the influence of CO2. That means that with a more realistic distribution of the influences between the natural cycles and CO2, the real influence of CO2 is about halve what the model has implemented. Thus 1.5 degr.C i.s.o. 3 degr.C for 2xCO2.