Global Warming

[Dawlish]

Sorry if I've created a thread which has, perhaps been created before, but there seems to be a lot of disparate discussion about GW and no actual thread for it. Please move this post, someone, if there is a pre-existing thread on Global Warming, me being fairly new to Netweather (though not to writing on the net about GW).

The NOAA have released their monthly Global survey, for April (OK, OK, missed the reslease date by a week!). Yet again, globally, the last month ended up in the top ten since recording began, ending up 7th on the all-time list.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../apr/apr06.html

"The average global temperature anomaly for combined land and ocean surfaces for April (based on preliminary data) was 0.88°F (0.49°C) above the 20th century mean. This was the seventh warmest April since 1880 (the beginning of reliable instrumental records)."

If anything, it is the sea temperatures (6th warmest) that are driving the warming temperatures, though land temperatures were the 8th highest since 1895 and GW continues. The USA recorded it's record warmest April since 1895.

[su rui ke]

Maybe we should have a 'guess the global average temperature' competition each month. It might be good for broadening people's perspective a bit.

So far, this year has been the 11th warmest since 1880.

[noggin]

From those figures it looks to me as if there is a cooldown happening, not a warm-up. If the globe was suffering from "warming", why are we not recording the absolute hottest temperatures since 1880? Genuine question......

PS Good Morning John......nice to see you, hope you are well!

Edited May 23, 2006 by noggin

[su rui ke]

From those figures it looks to me as if there is a cooldown happening, not a warm-up. If the globe was suffering from "warming", why are we not recording the absolute hottest temperatures since 1880? Genuine question......

PS Good Morning John......nice to see you, hope you are well!

Because to overcome the variability that there always is from year, for every year to have - let's say - a 99% chance of being warmer than the preceding one then the rate of warming would have to be far in excess of what it is now. Someone with a better grasp of statistics than me might be able to work out what that rate is!

[John Cox]

From those figures it looks to me as if there is a cooldown happening, not a warm-up. If the globe was suffering from "warming", why are we not recording the absolute hottest temperatures since 1880? Genuine question......

PS Good Morning John......nice to see you, hope you are well!

Hi Noggin,

Keeping the flag flying. Good man.

Just noticed you on here. I am keeping well and just biding time looking forward to next winter.

Sunday here was like winter with temps only 6-8C all day with heavy rain.

We had ground frost last night with temps dipping to 3C.

[noggin]

Because to overcome the variability that there always is from year, for every year to have - let's say - a 99% chance of being warmer than the preceding one then the rate of warming would have to be far in excess of what it is now. Someone with a better grasp of statistics than me might be able to work out what that rate is!

I understand the point that you are making (I think!), like the old Stock Market thing about it going up and down on a "short term" basis, but overall the trend being "up" ( ).

The same principle has to be applied to "cooling". I would be interested to know which years were considered to be the hottest, although statistics are open to manipulation/misinterpretation.....observation is the thing (as a leading scientist recently said when reviewing the effects of Chernyobl....nice to know he sees things my way ).

Hi Noggin,

Keeping the flag flying. Good man.

My arms are beginning to ache, John, but I will not falter, whatever the opposition throws this way!

I'm pleased to hear how cold it has been for you. :lol:

[Dawlish]

From those figures it looks to me as if there is a cooldown happening, not a warm-up. If the globe was suffering from "warming", why are we not recording the absolute hottest temperatures since 1880? Genuine question......

PS Good Morning John......nice to see you, hope you are well!

The warming trend has never been linear and it never will be. Our Atmosphere is a chaotic system and there is bound to be statistical variability, noggin. Overall, the trend is indisputably up, globally over the last 50 years at least and in the UK over the last 25 years. The same principles apply to saying; "wow! Stepped outside last night and it felt like February!" Well, yes, but in the first two weeks of May, maxima of 20c+ were recorded on many occasions. On the 4th, Northholt recorded 27.7c, within 1c of the date record (thanks Philip Eden). I suppose the People of Northholt would have been collectively stepping out and saying "blimy, it feels like midsummer" (actually it was a fair bit warmer than the midsummer northolt maximum average! Whatever happens in the UK at specific times means nothing when we talk about global warming.

[johnholmes]

sensible post there Dawlish.

One has to look at the long term trends not just pick periods that suit a case for global warming or cooling. On almost every shred of evidence there is the change in temperature over the period in which we have reasonably reliable temperature records is UP not down. Sure there will, as you posted, be variability, but the overall trend is up. Just why is the really big question. Is it due mainly/entirely to 'man' or is it just a natural occurrence in which 'man' has had no part? As a meteorologist with many years experience I find it fascinating to listen to acknowledged expert climatologists from around the world. Most agree its largely man made but certainly not all.

Yet another fascinating aspect of the weather, this time climatology not meteorology.

John

[Flemish Weather Freak]

Hi Noggin and John,

This year may be the 11th warmest for the world so far, but it certainly hasn't been for europe. Is this just another sign of the weakening NAD?

Something that has also my attention are the SSTA's in the NA. On this site, http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif , you can clearly see that the NA is divided in 2 parts: an eastern side which is a little bit colder then normal and a western side being far hotter then normal. I don't know whether this is different from other years, but if it is, I would link it to the NAD weakening very rapidly. If the water can't sink properly above Siberia the cold backstream of the gulfstream weakens. Could this be the reason of the water being far warmer in the western Atlantic then normal?

Here you can see the complex streams in the arctic area: http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewIm...=18930&aid=9206

Edited May 23, 2006 by Flemish Weather Freak

[The Penguin]

. . . . you can clearly see that the NA is divided in 2 parts: an eastern side which is a little bit colder then normal and a western side being far hotter then normal. . . . .

Interestingly, the U.S. Met have warned of another very active hurricane season on the way, with possibly half a dozen of these expected to be significant storms. I’m not any kind of expert on this but I would assume that a warmer western Atlantic would provide suitable conditions for energising storm activity.

[Dawlish]

Hi Noggin and John,

This year may be the 11th warmest for the world so far, but it certainly hasn't been for europe. Is this just another sign of the weakening NAD?

Sorry Flemish; we've got to be clear on this: there is no evidence that the NAD, Gulf Stream, NAC, or whatever it may be called, ie the currents that affect the North Atlantic, is weakening. Indeed, with the dwindling state of the summer Arctic sea ice, it may well be that, year on year, the NAD is bringing warmer water to the North Atlantic.

Edited May 23, 2006 by Dawlish

[John Cox]

It is indeed this global warming and especially so in the northern hemisphere that will bring about the shutting down of the NAD.

This warming will cause the Greenland ice to melt producing more freshwater in the north Atlantic. More rain will fall over Siberia that will lead the rivers producing more freshwater flowing into the northern seas. Both events will dilute the salty water. This will stop the weakened salty water sinking. This will eventually cause the NAD to shutdown.Its just a question of when!!!!!

Its a real chicken and egg situation. Cold will follow warm and warm will follow cold.

Edited May 23, 2006 by John Cox

[Dawlish]

It is indeed this global warming and especially so in the northern hemisphere that will bring about the shutting down of the NAD.

This warming will cause the Greenland ice to melt producing more freshwater in the north Atlantic. More rain will fall over Siberia that will lead the rivers producing more freshwater flowing into the northern seas. Both events will dilute the salty water. This will stop the weakened salty water sinking. This will eventually cause the NAD to shutdown.Its just a question of when!!!!!

Its a real chicken and egg situation. Cold will follow warm and warm will follow cold.

.......but the problem is, that the old Hollywood exaggeration mill has combined with some recent peripheral, though excellent, research, like Prof Wadham's work on the "columns" of sinking frest water in the Greenland Sea and the Southampton Uni study that found a decrease in one N/S current, to produce something approaching hysteria. I mean that in the true sense. Some of the claims that the Thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic is on the verge of shutting down are speculation at best and scaremongering at the worst. There is NO evidence that this is occurring, either directly, through measurement, or indirectly through effect. I really would challenge anyone to produce that evidence.

The timescales have been vastly overplayed. I agree, John, that theory certainly points to this happening and I would suggest that you, me and our close descendents will see the arctic ice continue to melt rapidly, but will not see any real change in the strength of the NAD.

[Flemish Weather Freak]

Sorry Flemish; we've got to be clear on this: there is no evidence that the NAD, Gulf Stream, NAC, or whatever it may be called, ie the currents that affect the North Atlantic, is weakening. Indeed, with the dwindling state of the summer Arctic sea ice, it may well be that, year on year, the NAD is bringing warmer water to the North Atlantic.

I don't say there is any real evidence that the NAD is weakening , but you can't say that there haven't been any indications lately that it could already be happening right now (look in the threads before where I put some of these indications and links). It certainly is gonna happen in the near future (1 - 100 years), if you take into account the estimations of warming and melting. The first weakening that will appear (is appearing) is unlikely to be directly measured, because this is a very difficult thing to do. This first few percents of weakening will go rather slowly (a few years), but when this percentage has reached a certain level it goes very fast. There is evidence from Greenland ice samples that the NAD can completely vanish in less then a decade.

This is the best site to learn more about the gulfstream: http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/index.htm

[kold weather]

People who are saying that this year is only 11th warmest and that this is a sign of a cooldown needs to remember something else first.

The last few months have had La nina present which while weak does seem to have been enough to slightly reduce global temperatures. Now we have neutral condtions the temps overall should rise a little. combine La Nina with the present solar min occuring and for this year to be still close to the top 10 is still pretty amazing and a strong sign that GW is happening.

[Dawlish]

I don't say there is any real evidence that the NAD is weakening , but you can't say that there haven't been any indications lately that it could already be happening right now (look in the threads before where I put some of these indications and links). It certainly is gonna happen in the near future (1 - 100 years), if you take into account the estimations of warming and melting. The first weakening that will appear (is appearing) is unlikely to be directly measured, because this is a very difficult thing to do. This first few percents of weakening will go rather slowly (a few years), but when this percentage has reached a certain level it goes very fast. There is evidence from Greenland ice samples that the NAD can completely vanish in less then a decade.

This is the best site to learn more about the gulfstream: http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/index.htm

Yes I certainly can say that there haven't been "indications" recently and almost every "indication" involves cooler weather/cooler waters in, or around the UK. Any cooler couple of weeks here, which makes our sea temperatures dip in the shallow waters close to our coast and someone says it is an indication that the gulf stream is slowing. It isn't. Whatever happens here is so small scale that it can be completely discounted. The lack of Arctic ice in the Barents Sea and the Greenland sea, however, really is a clear indication that there is no weakening in the amount of warm water moving NE in the Atlantic. If there was a weakening, the first sign would not be in changes in UK land, or sea temperatures, but in an increase in sea ice further North. Ice, in these two areas, most affected by the NAD, is, presently, way below the mean of even the last 30 years.

What exactly are these "indications" of a slowing/weakening/shutting down of the Gulf Stream/NAD? I missed them first time around! Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that such a shutting down will occur in the next 1-100 years. "certainly" doesn't come into it. That statement is pure speculation, I'm afraid.

Edited May 23, 2006 by Dawlish

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Couple of points...firstly JH excellent 'old' head post "warm will follow cold and cold will follow warm" very wise words. EL Nino LA Nina affects the oceans and rainfall distribution and areas are milder wetter etc but is it global especially if they are 'weak' alomost neutral affairs. The fact that climate is not Linear is a very valid and important point IMO. Constant 'forcing' surely [if it was so strong an issue] would cause linear readings, well they have to at some stage otherwise there must be a 'natural' explanation...why is that not the case. Why was there cooling in the mid 20th century? Don't forget...over the last 25 years ther has been NO air temperature increase on a global scale...absolutley zero. And before?... well we don't know because these records are only 25 years old And that says it all...warmest on record means warmest since around 1880ish...or 11th warmest? To little time and to many ifs/buts.....I think the planet has warmed by 0.7C approx over the last century...but I think that is in line with natural response! Be green, do your bit but keep a very open mind...we may be causing problems...but then again mother nature may be about to cause US problems. :blush:

BFTP

[Dawlish]

Couple of points...firstly JH excellent 'old' head post "warm will follow cold and cold will follow warm" very wise words. EL Nino LA Nina affects the oceans and rainfall distribution and areas are milder wetter etc but is it global especially if they are 'weak' alomost neutral affairs. The fact that climate is not Linear is a very valid and important point IMO. Constant 'forcing' surely [if it was so strong an issue] would cause linear readings, well they have to at some stage otherwise there must be a 'natural' explanation...why is that not the case. Why was there cooling in the mid 20th century? Don't forget...over the last 25 years ther has been NO air temperature increase on a global scale...absolutley zero. And before?... well we don't know because these records are only 25 years old And that says it all...warmest on record means warmest since around 1880ish...or 11th warmest? To little time and to many ifs/buts.....I think the planet has warmed by 0.7C approx over the last century...but I think that is in line with natural response! Be green, do your bit but keep a very open mind...we may be causing problems...but then again mother nature may be about to cause US problems. :blush:

BFTP

Hi BFTP,

Here's the University of Alabama's take on your, quite forceful, assertion that; "Don't forget...over the last 25 years ther has been NO air temperature increase on a global scale...absolutley zero"

http://www.uah.edu/News/climate/25years.pdf

It reads....."since Nov 16th 1978 (to 2003) there has been almost a 0.2C increase in Global temperatures. The article was written 3 years ago. 2005 was (just) the warmest year since 1890, globally. The rise continues.

Where did you get the idea that there is no data to show warming over the last 25 years? Such an odd (and completely incorrect) statement to make!

Edited May 23, 2006 by Dawlish

[Dawlish]

I'd like to put this one up for discussion:

Some (many?, most?) views which do not accept that GW is occurring often have their own agenda, which an acceptance of GW upsets. Also, I feel, strongly, that information taken straight from the Internet must be sourced, so readers can judge the source.

Here's a view taken from an Internet source (I came across this by pure chance, searching for "Global Warming news May 2006", on Google) which questions GW:

"Global warming, for instance, which remains speculative and based on incomplete computer models rather than on demonstrated science, might cost man and nature a great deal if we rush to impose dramatic limits on fossil-fuel use in a misguided attempt to solve a problem that may not even exist. Just twenty-five years ago, some of the current proponents of global warming were warning us about global cooling.33 Because ecology is still in its infancy, we need to utilize all that we know to help us find prudent solutions for these complex problems. We must also recognize that science alone is insufficient for resolving these matters, especially since these issues have moral implications. Thus, in recognizing that we will have to make unavoidable tradeoffs in striking a balance between human need and a clean environment, we must exercise prudence in addressing environmental concerns."

It is written under the auspices of an organisation with a bland name - the "Action Institute"

At first glance, it looks well written (it is - nice prose style ) and academic (it is - it is well, if very selectively reasearched) ......just look at the article in context, though:

http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/environment/t...m_catholic.html

Then look at the source of the funding:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2...xxon_chart.html

Then dig deeper into the source of the source:

http://www.motherjones.com/index.html

Here, we have a fairly extreme, protectionist/ecology organisation (motherjones), castigating ExxonMobil (a large, multinational oil company) for funding a deeply fundamentalist Catholic organisation (The Acton Institute for the Study of Religious Liberty), to the tune of £90,000 to come up with a thesis on ecology!!

Who do you believe?

I can't believe the Catholic organisation: religion has no part to play in good science, though Catholicism would like to think that it should. I can't believe the oil company; oil companies do not want to hear CO2 and GW in the same sentence. I can't believe the ecology people who would like to link CO2, GW and humans inextricab and forever.

In essence, this is the kind of report that I would dismiss, when talking about GW and the kind of reference that i would savage, if it was provided as "evidence". I must say that I'm interested in an oil company funding research from the Catholic church (I wonder who authorised that?? Can I have 90K to do some writing please, with a lot of references? I promise not to write anything critical), but I'm not interested in much of the rest.

What does anyone else think and can you come up with iffy sources of info on either side of the debate, about Global Warming?

[Dawlish]

Philip Eden has the UK temp anomaly, so far this year, (Jan 1st to April 30) as +0.0. It hasn't been a cool year, it has been an incredibly average year. Even that is now unusual and it would be easy to think that a cooling trend was in the offing, as a result of the first 4 months of this year being cooler than in many recent years. The UK, however, as with any very small location, is subject to much wider variations than the world as a whole and though we have had an average start to the year, the globe as a whole has carried on warming.

Here's an update on the global year so far.

All stats are comparisons to the ocean+land series average from 1880-2005 taken from the NOAA/NCDC site on http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...lobal.html#Temp

Jan. +0.28C

Feb. +0.45C

Mar. +0.56C

Apr. +0.49C

Every month of 2006, so far, has been warmer than average, January was 13th warmest, February, March and April were all 7th warmest for their respective months. There is no ongoing comparison, but the first third of the year has been significantly warmer than average and will be comfortably in the top 10 warmest first thirds since recordings began. One really surprising thing is that we are seeing these significantly above average global temperatures in a year where we have a La Nina, which would be expected to reduce world temperatures, especially ocean temperatures. If this were an El Nino year, one would expect these global monthly figures to be higher, perhaps much higher.

It is so easy to fall into the trap of experiencing the weather in the UK and extrapolating much further than one should. "Global" means exactly that. The UK is subject to large variations in its weather. Such variations are smoothed out when you examine the Earth as a whole.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Dawlish

[Mondy]

Personally, considering the current state of affairs around the globe, a nuclear bomb or dirty bomb will be unleashed, say within 20 years. If enough of them are let off we won't need to worry about global warming anyway

Planet Earth will be uninhabitable. There's also the small matter of the Sun planning it's own little fireworks display. Although that's four billion plus years away -_-

Edited June 18, 2006 by Mondy the clumsy

[Dawlish]

Gawd Mondy! Any chance of taking a happy pill?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Remarkably, the land areas of the Southern Hemisphere were actually cooler than the long-term average, according to the latest output from NOAA for May. That's the first time I have ever seen any area of the globe not report an above-average temperature.

For those sceptics among you, though, it doesn't show that the warming trend has halted. We'd need to see a lot more of this over the next few years before any conclusions could be drawn; averaged globally it was still the 5th warmest on record because the Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere oceans, were rather warm.

[Mr Sleet]

Hi BFTP,

Here's the University of Alabama's take on your, quite forceful, assertion that; "Don't forget...over the last 25 years ther has been NO air temperature increase on a global scale...absolutley zero"

http://www.uah.edu/News/climate/25years.pdf

It reads....."since Nov 16th 1978 (to 2003) there has been almost a 0.2C increase in Global temperatures. The article was written 3 years ago. 2005 was (just) the warmest year since 1890, globally. The rise continues.

Where did you get the idea that there is no data to show warming over the last 25 years? Such an odd (and completely incorrect) statement to make!

1998 was the warmest, was it not ?

[Dawlish]

1998 was the warmest, was it not ?

Yes....and No. According to NOAA, last year, 2005, was statistically indistinguishable from 1998. 1998 was also an El Nino year, whereas last year was not. One could have expected 1998 to have been comfortably warmer, however, the warming trend, 7 years on, allowed a non-El Nino year to challenge an El Nino year, for warmth. The next El Nino year should certainly provide a record Global temperature.

Paul

Remarkably, the land areas of the Southern Hemisphere were actually cooler than the long-term average, according to the latest output from NOAA for May. That's the first time I have ever seen any area of the globe not report an above-average temperature.

For those sceptics among you, though, it doesn't show that the warming trend has halted. We'd need to see a lot more of this over the next few years before any conclusions could be drawn; averaged globally it was still the 5th warmest on record because the Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere oceans, were rather warm.

Hi TWS. As I hinted at, in my previous reply to Mr Sleet, I'm not terribly surprised that we have cooler Temps in the Southern Hemisphere, as it is a La Nina year.

Paul

PS Where'd you get the May figures from? I can't find them on the NOAA site and I have been checking every day for 4 days!

Paul