What Happened To Global Warming

[laserguy]

Funny old thread this, it could just as well have been called, what's happened to global cooling, as there seems to be scant signs of that.

You have got to be joking WE! The sheer number of long-standing low temperature records being broken (and in a huge number of cases by a very substantial margin) is far,far beyond my patience to collate. And I'm not just talking about the US! Take a look around while I go sleep off my night-shift. Ah it's just weather again and nothing of note in these times of AGW,and the usual suspects will come up with the usual spiel about how warm it's actually been globally and all these good folks must really be imagining the cold. Oh and how's the Arctic recovering these days? And isn't Antarctic ice at record levels (ignoring the odd ice-cube which breaks off that the AGW pushers love to show us)? How's those sea-levels doing,these days? I could go on...and on...and on. And all the while CO2 goes up...and up...and up.It's like knowing you've nowt in the bank but the manager telling you you're a millionaire! (Or something like that)! Anyway,'tis good (and fully expected by moi) that the blatant public face of AGW had to crack sooner or later. Get ready for the dam to rupture. 'Night all!

[Gray-Wolf]

So can we look to the 'past' as an indicator of what is to come? We know impacts (temp wise) of the 'dimmed period', we know the general ball park figure of the impact of PDO-ve across the northern hemisphere.Surely a bit of simple math would show us how much 'warming' had to have been masked by a/ the dimming, b/ the PDO phase to have us at the historical figure we have logged

We know that we were clawing our way out of the 'dimmed period' as the PDO flipped positive ( during the 70's) and so throughout the 80's the temps were less and less impacted by the phenomena.

Temps through the late 80's early 90's appear closer to the PDO+ve forcing but still less than PDO+ve and AGW forcing combined ( then we had Pinatubo/St Helen's and the like to add in a tad more 'dimming' over some of that period so ,I suppose, you'd have to expect some augmentation to the overall temps).

With the drive to 'clean' energy the impacts of Indo-China's industrialisation on temps (via dimming) will probably be nothing like the scale of the impact we saw from NW Europe/USA over the dimmed 40yr period.

So, as I see things, we face the next PDO+ve unfettered from any 'dimming' burden ,we can add in the impact of another 30 odd ppm of CO2 and then factor in that the northern 'air conditioning facility' (Arctic ice) now only has 3/5ths the potential for climate moderation it had through the last PDO positive phase (if we look at reductions in summer albedo alone and not the heat retention of the exposed 'dark water').

Wheels coming off??? Nitrous kit added maybe

[Methuselah]

Up to now (genuine well thought-out reasons for AGW-scepticism notwithstanding) the only 'evidence' I've ever seen presented for global cooling has been, apparently, a direct function of the number of blogs that make the claim...Perhaps we could call this number B_blog?

[Gowon]

Can I just say that actually, nobody knows what the future holds - this applies equally to both sides of this debate.

At best, we can speculate about tomorrow, next week, next year, the next decade; if's, but's, maybe's and perhaps - there are very few definitives other than the Sun will rise and set on a daily basis. Perhaps it could be construed as boring or tedious to only talk in terms of possibilities but that's the reality, anyone who picks info (from either side) to support their stance and presents it as "this is what the future holds" is at the very best, no more than an educated guess.

Yes jethro your right, but if everyone agreed to disagree this forum wouldn't be interesting. Its also good to see the media reporting the doubts/distrust regarding AGW.

[Gray-Wolf]

Up to now (genuine well thought-out reasons for AGW-scepticism notwithstanding) the only 'evidence' I've ever seen presented for global cooling has been, apparently, a direct function of the number of blogs that make the claim...Perhaps we could call this number B_blog?

apparently humans (well maybe just Americans seeing as it was a U.S. study) have a funny 'time sensitive' way of assessing risk. If two groups of folk were given two locations each to travel to and then shown the govt.s risk assessment of those places the report they most recently read would have them rate this place as most 'risky' even if both places rick factors were assessed as equal. By the time the info has reached the long term memory the folk then make a better judement and rank both places as equally 'risky'.

Maybe the folk on here who read the science papers and are constantly reminded of the risks AGW poses (or even the increased risks as new data comes to light) are more likely to assess the threat as greater than the folk who spend their time in the denial 'blogsphere' being fed a different story?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes jethro your right, but if everyone agreed to disagree this forum wouldn't be interesting. Its also good to see the media reporting the doubts/distrust regarding AGW.

It is true that "let's agree to disagree" can kill a discussion (though under certain circumstances it can be the only effective way to resolve an argument that is going around in circles) but that rather misses the point.

Many blogs across the internet (take a look at any "comments" section at the site Realclimate.org for example) have discussions regarding climate change that have many people offering very different views, and sometimes the debates get quite heated. But importantly, the contributors show respect for other people's views- by this I mean they take said views on board instead of dismissing them on a whim or attributing views to them that they don't hold- and make an effort to dispute them in a constructive way that helps to stimulate further debate. Quite often the amount of scientific analysis is impressive.

What we see too much of on N-W is dismissing others' views on a whim in a non-constructive way that helps to stifle discussion. Regarding speculating about what the future holds, there's nothing wrong with doing that as long as we're clear that it is speculation. Too many people are expressing opinion as fact, i.e. "we will warm in the next 2 years", or "we will cool and the wheels will fall off AGW". In reality we don't know, and even the top climate scientists will, if pressed, readily admit that they don't know.

[SP1986]

I think the problem people assume that if the UK is cooler than usual in one season that must mean global warming is a fallacy, unfortunately the rest of the world is not looked at, because whilst Britain might have cooling, somewhere is in the world is having record warming, and it gets completely ignored. Aside from the point that 2 years don't make a trend in climatic terms, it seems for the moment until proper, and perhaps more long term evidence comes about that people really want a warming trend to stop and that's it really.

Im all for a cooling scenario in the trend, as this is what we would be happiest happening, but I'm afraid there's no evidence yet that warming has stopped in a longer trend scenario, and similarly no evidence that any significant meaningful cooling has occurred.

We have to wait and see in all honesty, it's not something you can debate now because everything is just conjecture based on short term timescales.

[SteveB]

I think rather than look at individual places around the world for cooling or warming evidence, the poles is the real area where true analysis can be gathered.

And yes there is evidence from observing the poles that global warming is taking place. But also it can not be argued, that evidence of warming has slowed, or reversed of the last few years.

In summery we have had 25-30yrs of warming at the poles, and 2-3 yrs of leveling out or cooling.

More evidence as ever is required in order to see whether we continue up, or start to fall.

Edited October 14, 2009 by SteveB

[weather eater]

It is true that "let's agree to disagree" can kill a discussion (though under certain circumstances it can be the only effective way to resolve an argument that is going around in circles) but that rather misses the point.

Many blogs across the internet (take a look at any "comments" section at the site Realclimate.org for example) have discussions regarding climate change that have many people offering very different views, and sometimes the debates get quite heated. But importantly, the contributors show respect for other people's views- by this I mean they take said views on board instead of dismissing them on a whim or attributing views to them that they don't hold- and make an effort to dispute them in a constructive way that helps to stimulate further debate. Quite often the amount of scientific analysis is impressive.

What we see too much of on N-W is dismissing others' views on a whim in a non-constructive way that helps to stifle discussion. Regarding speculating about what the future holds, there's nothing wrong with doing that as long as we're clear that it is speculation. Too many people are expressing opinion as fact, i.e. "we will warm in the next 2 years", or "we will cool and the wheels will fall off AGW". In reality we don't know, and even the top climate scientists will, if pressed, readily admit that they don't know.

The most irritating factor of the debate on NW is that there is little attempt at to find a middle ground, its either yes or no and frankly some of the posts that are made, to put it mildly are just rabid, I have visions of some members sitting at their keyboards, veins throbbing on foreheads, neck muscles bulging. In fact there are a proportion of members on the sceptic side that view anybody who evens dares to suggest that maybe man is having some effect on climate even if its only a little , as some sort of heretic or unbeliever who needs to be insulted before being burnt at the stake. Its all rather a reflection of how rude and intolerant we have become as a nation. I suspect there is a political connection as well, sceptics right and believers left or center.

Edited October 14, 2009 by weather eater

[SteveB]

The most irritating factor of the debate on NW is that there is little attempt at to find a middle ground, its either yes or no and frankly some of the posts that are made, to put it mildly are just rabid, I have visions of some members sitting at their keyboards, veins throbbing on foreheads, neck muscles bulging. In fact there are a proportion of members on the sceptic side that view anybody who evens dares to suggest that maybe man is having some effect on climate even if its only a little , as some sort of heretic or unbeliever who needs to be insulted before being burnt at the stake. Its all rather a reflection of how rude and intolerant we have become as a nation. I suspect there is a political connection as well, sceptics right and believers left or center.

I think a lot of people who don't believe that man is behind global warming, see it from a fairly logical view point.

1. who is it that is gathering records on global warming. Man

2. How long has detailed records been kept on global warming. say 40yrs.

3. What would man do if we were on the verge of a medieval type warming period or indeed a glacial period, would we be blaming ourselves for this change of events.

4. I think it is all to easy to blame humans for the recent warming, but it's happened in the past with out the interference of man.

[Gowon]

It has got warmer since the first time I heard about AGW (in my senior school days) and back then we was made to believe that England would soon become desert like, I'll admit it did scare me. Over the last couple of years our summers have been cool and we had a really cold winter so I started to do a little research, that was the first time I learnt about sunspots and other planets influences on our planet. I'm a layman but I've witnessed enough natural influences over the last couple of years to doubt the whole AGW notion/consensus.

[noggin]

It is true that "let's agree to disagree" can kill a discussion (though under certain circumstances it can be the only effective way to resolve an argument that is going around in circles) but that rather misses the point.

Many blogs across the internet (take a look at any "comments" section at the site Realclimate.org for example) have discussions regarding climate change that have many people offering very different views, and sometimes the debates get quite heated. But importantly, the contributors show respect for other people's views- by this I mean they take said views on board instead of dismissing them on a whim or attributing views to them that they don't hold- and make an effort to dispute them in a constructive way that helps to stimulate further debate. Quite often the amount of scientific analysis is impressive.

What we see too much of on N-W is dismissing others' views on a whim in a non-constructive way that helps to stifle discussion. Regarding speculating about what the future holds, there's nothing wrong with doing that as long as we're clear that it is speculation. Too many people are expressing opinion as fact, i.e. "we will warm in the next 2 years", or "we will cool and the wheels will fall off AGW". In reality we don't know, and even the top climate scientists will, if pressed, readily admit that they don't know.

Sometimes, TWS, your posts are quite "soothing", y'know. :lol:

In fact there are a proportion of members on the sceptic side that view anybody who evens dares to suggest that maybe man is having some effect on climate even if its only a little , as some sort of heretic or unbeliever who needs to be insulted before being burnt at the stake.

I hope I don't come across like that.

From my point of view, as a sceptic, I have been made to feel like an heretic here for years, ever since I first mentioned that I thought the warming had stopped.

Funny, isn't it, how both "sides" feel persecuted! :wub:

[andymusic]

It seems to me that global warming is a little "over-hyped" by governments to help control societies they govern. It never hurts to have a population fear something so that the governments can wield a sort of power over them (and they can charge extra taxes in the name of something that may not truthfully be happening). I'm in the camp that suggests it's a little far fetched to believe that the industrial revolution (the last 200 years or so only) is solely to blame for a shift in our climate. I believe there are much larger forces around eg. the sun, which has and will vary our climate (some scientists believe that right now we are about to enter a cooler phase of climate in the next 20 to 30 years due to lower solar activity). Considering that the earth has been around for millions of years and the climate has shifted from cool to hot etc. - volcanoes have thrown out smoke etc to cause the world's temp to go up and then down - the sun's solar activity varies the climate - these larger forces seem to me to be the more important forces to cause this so called "problem" (which really are natural cycles in the earth's evolution). I'm not saying that man hasn't had an "effect" (MILLIONS OF YEARS without man - 200 years of industrial evolution - you've got to put things in perspective), but I don't think it warrants the activities and taxes governments are levying on our society.

Edited October 14, 2009 by andymusic

[DAVID SNOW]

It seems to me that global warming is a little "over-hyped" by governments to help control societies they govern. It never hurts to have a population fear something so that the governments can wield a sort of power over them (and they can charge extra taxes in the name of something that may not truthfully be happening). I'm in the camp that suggests it's a little far fetched to believe that the industrial revolution (the last 200 years or so only) is solely to blame for a shift in our climate. I believe there are much larger forces around eg. the sun, which has and will vary our climate (some scientists believe that right now we are about to enter a cooler phase of climate in the next 20 to 30 years due to lower solar activity). Considering that the earth has been around for millions of years and the climate has shifted from cool to hot etc. - volcanoes have thrown out smoke etc to cause the world's temp to go up and then down - the sun's solar activity varies the climate - these larger forces seem to me to be the more important forces to cause this so called "problem" (which really are natural cycles in the earth's evolution). I'm not saying that man hasn't had an "effect" (MILLIONS OF YEARS without man - 200 years of industrial evolution - you've got to put things in perspective), but I don't think it warrants the activities and taxes governments are levying on our society.

A well put rational post

[Thundery wintry showers]

I must admit I sympathise with various aspects of that view. I do think governments have a tendency to latch onto AGW to further certain "control" agendas- though at the same time, there are plenty of groups that latch onto scepticism so that they can justify continuing to pollute and consume non-sustainably.

However, it's also guilty of mis-representing what the consensus view really is. Few of the mainstream scientists actually argue that human activity is solely responsible for our recent climate shifts, but rather that it has probably played a significant role. Also, we're all pretty much agreed that natural forcings, such as solar activity, are capable of drowning out the impacts caused by anthropogenic forcings. The problem with this is that in the next couple of centuries there is more of a risk of the anthropogenic component causing significant climate change than of all of the natural components put together doing so.

The problem regarding taxes and activities is mainly that governments tend to think in the short term, regarding election performances, and not in the long term. If we are to move towards sustainable living without having to be very draconian in forcing people towards that end, we're going to have to use long term policymaking, but the desire to think in spans of 4-5 years and the desire for control work against that. There's also a growing trend among society to accept erosion of freedoms as a necessary evil, and that big sticks are the only way forward, which doesn't help matters.

[andymusic]

A well put rational post

Thanks David

I would add as well - our fuel resources are finite and we do need to work our way towards new power resources to lessen the impact on the earth - I'm sure our technological abilities will grow to be able to solve these and many other issues like these.

[Devonian]

I think a lot of people who don't believe that man is behind global warming, see it from a fairly logical view point.

1. who is it that is gathering records on global warming. Man

I don't get this point, it's obviously a given.

2. How long has detailed records been kept on global warming. say 40yrs.

A lot longer than that, at least 150 years.

3. What would man do if we were on the verge of a medieval type warming period or indeed a glacial period, would we be blaming ourselves for this change of events.

A bit like being in the middle of a flood and asking 'what would we blame if it was a drought?' An interesting question but not helpful to those people getting wet or relevant

4. I think it is all to easy to blame humans for the recent warming, but it's happened in the past with out the interference of man.

So have floods, but that doesn't mean we can't be have an effect on floods now does it?

Edited October 14, 2009 by Devonian

[SteveB]

The point I raised about gathering the data, is that it is then man who blames himself for the warming that the data shows. It's not an un-biased point of view.

Satellites as far as I am aware have only been around for 40 odd yrs. The other 110yrs of data can not be compared with satellite data, and far as I am aware that is when significant warming has occured.

And as far as your answers to points 3 & 4, I don't get your point???

Edited October 14, 2009 by SteveB

[weather eater]

Funny, isn't it, how both "sides" feel persecuted!

And that’s the point I'm making, nobody needs to feel like that, if a little more care is taken with peoples posts, there is no need for the inflammatory statements or rudeness.

For myself I'm pretty much in the same camp as TWS, I believe that man has had an effect on climate, but that effect is not properly understood and maybe being over estimated. Of course not understood properly, could be a double edged sword, as what tends to be forgotten is that when we don’t fully understand something, it is also possible that we may be under estimating, rather than over estimating. Not only does that apply to AGW but also to natural forcings. There’s plenty of research to suggest that natural climate change can be very rapid and extreme. In his book the two mile time machine, Richard B Alley a professor of geosciences discusses how the last Ice Age may have ended over the course of just three years. In their book The Great Ice Age, Wilson, Drury and Chapman (Its an OU guide) describe both rapid natural and rapid man made climate change. In fact, in both of these books natural forcings form the basis for the research, however nether dismisses man made forcings.

[laserguy]

Evenin' all! Just got up after a fitful sleep (filled with nightmarish visions of calving ice and submerged cities etc),had a peek at every AGW type's fave WUWT and lo and behold what do I see?

http://wattsupwithth...n-snow-already/

I'm not going to add what I think because I'm tired and fractious and not relishing the night ahead. But I do wonder what those affected will make of it in light of the warming they are 'supposed' to be experiencing?

[Nights King]

I believe man made global warming exists but is much smaller than the meto would like us to think so the natural processes like pdo and solar minimum are overriding it and long may it continue.

I like the sollution that one scientist put forward which was instead of spend a stupid amount of money of energy saving products like solar panels which radiate heat back into our environment why not just pump a load of sulphur dioxide up into the upper atmosphere and cool down our planet that way if global warming becomes a problem? far cheaper although that would be using a pollutant to cool us back down.

At the end of the day it doesnt matter which side of the argument you are on, whoever shouts loudest isnt nesicerally going to be right....

[snowflakey]

Oh yes it has! as if this would get by some of our posters

We may well look back at this period as the one that showed how big AGW's influence is becoming if it is near overturning of the negative PDO phase.

Obviously once the downward pull of PDO-ve is over temps will continue on there accelerating upwards trend and we have already had warnings that the warming will return, with a vengeance, once any natural 'downward pull' on them is over.

Thanks Gray Wolf for your thoughts on what is a fascinating subject. It begs a question witch I put on a different forum a little time ago.

If the thinking now is maybe the -PDO is counteracted by AGW, then why wasn't this picked up on the climate models pre 1998. I would have thought that as the PDO is, by definition a predictable cycle, then this flattening out of global temps should have been picked up on in there forecasts in 1998.

[weather eater]

Evenin' all! Just got up after a fitful sleep (filled with nightmarish visions of calving ice and submerged cities etc),had a peek at every AGW type's fave WUWT and lo and behold what do I see?

http://wattsupwithth...n-snow-already/

I'm not going to add what I think because I'm tired and fractious and not relishing the night ahead. But I do wonder what those affected will make of it in light of the warming they are 'supposed' to be experiencing?

I think that’s a very predictable sceptic post, X years of warming are a blip in climate history to short to make judgements etc, 1 year of early snowfall in the states and the warming’s over. Maybe a flippant response but I just don’t think that climate change whether man made or natural is that simple.

[MR EXTREMES]

I think that's a very predictable sceptic post, X years of warming are a blip in climate history to short to make judgements etc, 1 year of early snowfall in the states and the warming's over. Maybe a flippant response but I just don't think that climate change whether man made or natural is that simple.

i think watching the climate over the last few years has shown me how unpredictable it is,

and there more to add to the list than just early snowfall in the states like arctic holding up a little better and record breaking cold in the states when normally it warm at that time of year.

over here its not been the bbq summer suggested although not as cold as the states 90f was not a regular feature this summer and this shows the unpredictability in our weather and climate.

lets also add in the el nino,

although there is still time for a upturn its becoming less likely as time ticks on,

add in the southerly tracking jet and low solar minimum perhapes there will be a little pause before temps start to fall futher,

but saying this im not able to read the future,

and as far as im concerned nearly all warming and cooling are predictions,

and i think until everything is predictable by 100% then maybe we will all be able to understand the hype.

but at the moment theres only one conclusion i can come to and that it all natural.

[Gray-Wolf]

And if I accept that 'man if of nature' then his impact must be natural surely?

I have no argument there but it is like the first life on this planet and it's impact on earth via it's 'emissions'.

Before the evolution of that life form we find no 'red beds' in the geological record. There just was not enough oxygen to oxidize the free Fe on the planet.

Before we reached a point where there was enough 'free oxygen ' in the atmosphere to produce the first oxidization on the surface (and the production of the of the 'rusty' sandstones that are our first 'red beds' .....long before the Triassic red sandstones we are common with in the NW......desert deposits as it happens with the structure of the fossil sand dunes well preserved inside and the sand it's built from wind blasted round and opaque.....the oceans had absorbed all of their emissions before it too became oxygen infused.

Anyone who thinks we ,and our efforts, cannot change our atmosphere in any meaningful way over such a short period should look at what 'life' itself has done to the planet!

Still no answer to my mulling about the (historical) double whammy of global dimming and -ve PDO.

Did to our northern hemisphere react as 'expected' in the last major PDO negative or does the record show it significantly 'cooler' (in line with the reduction measured in the solar impacts at ground level as measured by the then pan evaporation rates?) than our past negative phases?

If we dare not look forward then why not explore our past ,measured, natural cycles and the influence of man on them which we have measured and agreed on?

To me it looks as though we may as well be seeking a lack of cold, and not 'missing heat', when we look at the past 60yrs in the northern hemisphere.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Gray-Wolf