Global temperatures 'to decrease'
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases. La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world. El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina. It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
I blogged recently that we don’t dare whisper Global Warming any longer in NZ, indeed the weather report for the increased temperatures last month were met with a wail of climate deniers all declaring, “It’s just La Nina”, yeah that’s true, but of course without the cooling effect of La Nina this year those temperatures would be off the record, so while some claimed it’s just natural effects from La Nina, they fail to grasp that our above average temperatures would be even harsher if it were not for the cooling effects of La Nina, so that even when we take the natural cooling and heating rhythms of the planet into account, we are dangerously above where we should be. Oh and another kick in the head for our climate denying friends in National…
‘No Sun link' to climate change
Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity. The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity. But UK scientists found there has been no significant link between cosmic rays and cloudiness in the last 20 years.
…in the coming decades, let’s not forget the leaders who fiddled while the planet burnt.
posted by Bomber @ 6:06 am
12 comments
12 Comments:
Science has moved on from global warming. It is not happening!
http://www.mises.org/story/2795
Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming?
Daily Article | Posted on 12/11/2007 by David Evans
The natural science of climatology and the social science of economics find themselves bound up with each other in the debate on global warming.
There are many economic issues to discuss concerning the government's ability to control the future of weather patterns through regulation and the like.
But so far, the debate has focused on the natural-science question of whether global warming is actually occurring, and, if so, what its cause is. Here is where the popular understanding is very much in need of correction.
A paper I wrote, "I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train," briefly describes the history of why we used to believe that carbon emissions caused global warming, and how we got to where we are now in the debate.
Ice Core Data Reverses — 2003
First crucial point, 2003: We've all seen Al Gore's movie. It was the early, low resolution ice core data first gathered in 1985 that convinced the world that CO2 was the culprit: CO2 levels and temperature rose and fell in lockstep over the last half a million years, to the resolution of the old ice core data (results from 1985–2000, data points over a thousand years apart). It was assumed (bad assumption #1) that CO2 levels controlled the world's temperature.
After further research, new high-resolution ice core results (data points only a few hundred years apart) in 2000–2003 allowed us to distinguish which came first, the temperature rises or the CO2 rises. We found that temperature changes preceded CO2 changes by an average of 800 years. So temperature caused the CO2 levels, and not the other way around as previously assumed. The world should have started backpedaling away from blaming carbon emissions in 2003.
Greenhouse Signature Missing — 2007
Second crucial point, August 2007: There are several possible causes of global warming, and they each warm the atmosphere at different latitudes and altitudes — that is, each cause will produce a distinct pattern of hot spots in the atmosphere, or "signature." The greenhouse signature is very distinct from the others: warming due to greenhouse would cause most warming in the tropics at about 10 km up in the atmosphere:
Theoretical Greenhouse Signature (UN climate models)
As of August 2007, we've measured where the warming is occurring in a fair bit of detail, using satellites and balloons. The observed signature is nothing like the greenhouse signature. The distinct greenhouse signature is entirely missing:
Observed Warming (Hadley Centre radiosonde observations 2006, confirmed by more measurements published in 2007)
There is no hotspot in the tropics at 10 km up, so now we know that greenhouse warming is not the (main) cause of global warming — so we know that carbon emissions are not the (main) cause of global warming.
Of course these observations need to be repeated by other researchers before we can be completely sure, but they are made by top-notch researchers and reported in top-of-the-line, peer-reviewed journals; so at this stage they look solid. This article from August 2007 is a hard read, but the results are new, it is the most accessible on the web so far, and is much easier to understand than the raw scientific papers:
"Greenhouse warming? What greenhouse warming?"
Where the IPCC Models Went Wrong — 2007
So why did we go wrong? Another set of recent observations show why the UN climate models got it wrong.
Doubling atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280ppm up to 560ppm (which is roughly where the IPCC says we will be in 2100) is calculated to raise the world's air temperature by 1.2C in the absence of feedbacks such as convection and clouds. This is what you would get if the air was in a flask in a laboratory. Everyone roughly agrees with that calculated result.
But the modelers assumed (bad assumption #2) that increased warming would cause more rainfall, which would cause more clouds high up in the atmosphere — and since high clouds have a net warming effect, this would cause more warming and thus more rainfall and so on. It is this positive feedback that causes the UN climate models to predict a temperature rise due to a rise in CO2 to 560ppm to be 2.5C - 4.7C (of which we have already experienced 0.7C).
But in September 2007, Spencer, who spent a few years observing the temperatures, clouds, and rainfall, reported that warming is actually associated with fewer high clouds. So the observed feedback is actually negative, so we won't even get the full 1.2C of greenhouse warming even if carbon levels double!
As Spencer says with such understatement,
Global warming theory says warming will generally be accompanied by more rainfall. Everyone just assumed that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That would be your first guess and, since we didn't have any data to suggest otherwise….
Science is about observational evidence trumping theoretical calculations, which is exactly what is happening here:
"Cirrus disappearance: Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds" (8/9/2007)
Warming Already Waning
The only temperature data we can trust are satellite measurements, and they only go back to 1979. They show no warming in the southern hemisphere, and the warming trend in the northern hemisphere appears to have waned since 2001:
Global Satellite temperatures (1979 – late 2007)
Three Stages of Knowledge and the IPCC
Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
1985–2003 Old ice core data led us to strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.
2003–2007 New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
From Aug 2007 Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.
The IPCC 2007 report (the latest and greatest from the IPCC) is based on all scientific literature up to mid 2006. The Bali Conference is the bureaucratic response to that report. Too bad that the data has changed since then!
David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak.
More importantly temperatures have been flat over all for the last several years even before this El Nina. The Argos probes revealed this years decline is part of it's own trend.
...
Oh Lego aren't you precious, I want to hear what a bar manager with racist undertones has to say on weather, I really do, now as for Mr Evans, I've popped along to my very good freinds at Hot Topic, the best climate change blogsite I've read and their come back was as follows....
Evans is saying pretty much the same thing as Owen McShane in last week’s NBR. I’m planning to give Owen’s piece a once over - it’s based on one paper and some unpublished stuff, so doesn’t amount to much. It’s clutching at straws, basically. We know from the paleoclimate record that regional climate changes can be rapid and large (the end of the Younger Dryas [see Wikipedia] could have been +7C in only a few years in some areas). It’s an unquantified risk, and they’re the most worrying kind…
Tell this to a friend of mine in Colarado u.s.a who has had the biggest dumping of snow on his property for the last 16 years.
Global warming,ha! greenie hysteria at it's worst.
Right if you'll excuse me it's time to go for another burn in my new M3.
Oh Lego aren't you precious, I want to hear what a bar manager with racist undertones has to say on weather, I really do, now as for Mr Evans
1) Haven't worked in a bar for 10 years.
2)Sorry, I must have missed all your qualifications to comment on the weather Bo ber.
Please feel free to post here the extensive qualifications you hold that enable you to pontificate in such a supercilious manner.
...
Anonymous said...
Tell this to a friend of mine in Colarado u.s.a who has had the biggest dumping of snow on his property for the last 16 years. Global warming,ha! greenie hysteria at it's worst. Right if you'll excuse me it's time to go for another burn in my new M3.
Ummm - Dear American mate, Global Warming will throw the weather patterns off so you get extreme weather patterns all the time, like massive dumps of snow.....that you aren't aware of this at all is incredibly concerning. Please tell me you don't vote.
1) Haven't worked in a bar for 10 years.
Sorry Lego - I want to hear what an OLD bar manager with slightly racist undertones has to say on the issue, now for Mr Evans - feel better Lego, need a hug? You right for socks and undies as well love?
2)Sorry, I must have missed all your qualifications to comment on the weather Bo ber.
Oh Lego, look at you trying to twist the arguement, I love how when the ground starts to move on your arguements, like a troll you leap to some other crazy notion - where is all your questions backing Evans, this is where this debate started, as for my qualifications, aside from my University education that gave me a sharp mind and a devil may care wink, the beauty of climate change is that you can learn simply from reading some books to get a really great grasp on what is happening, which is why I'm always amused that of all the topics you want to have a swing at me over, you chose global warming, the one issue that there is no way of you winning, come on champ get back to accusing me of hypocracy or being a white bigot, or any of the other myriad of pointless comments you post, I think you're a bit punch drunk now and you're just out chasing any car on the road, come on mate, come in for a cup of tea, all those years dealing with late night shifts and drunks burns a mind out, I've met so many people from that industry who are left bitter and jaded, it's not your fault Lego, it's a hard industry to survive. You take a moment, catch your breath and get back in the game.
Good on ya mate, make mine a double.
Hey Bomber, I wouldn't waste your time over at hot-topic as it already seems to be corrupting your common sense of reality. After all what does a truffle grower know eh ? lol. Leave the science to the real scientists (not the IPCC). Did you read the NBR article ? Did you note that the lead IPCC author on feedback agreed with Spencer. Time will tell for sure but IMHO AGW is a load of the purest BS you can get !
delboy is ANOTHER climate skeptic? How sad, he was great in only fools and horses
...
In a startling reappraisal of the threat, James Hansen, head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, has called for a sharp reduction in C02 limits. Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed". What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster," Hansen told the Guardian. At levels as high as 550ppm, the world would warm by 6C, the paper finds. Previous estimates had suggested warming would be just 3C at that point. The fundamental reason for his reassessment was what he calls "slow feedback" mechanisms which are only now becoming fully understood. They amplify the rise in temperature caused by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases. Ice and snow reflect sunlight but when they melt, they leave exposed ground which absorbs more heat. As ice sheets recede, the warming effect is compounded. Satellite technology available over the past three years has shown that the ice sheets are melting much faster than expected, with Greenland and west Antarctica both losing mass.
Sorry Delboy, your claims still don't seem to stand up to the reality of the situation.
Bill is another gullible sheep.
Bomber seems to be just totally clueless.
Bomber have you actually really looked into the whole AGW issue. I only asked because I'm amazed that you replied with a load of nonsense from Hansen. The guy is the #1 alarmist (or is it Gore ?) Hansens BS has been debunked many times over by the guys at Climateaudit and even the IPCC dumped his 'infamous' hockeystick con job. CO2 has been known not to be a contributor to climate change since August 2007. Even the last IPCC fantasy was based on old data from 2006. Eventually you sheeple will see the AGW scam for what it really is, control & taxes. I just hope we're not too screwed before that happens as our standard of living will take a huge dive if laws are passed based on nothing more than a 'what if'.
Looks like the poster known as "batnv" at Hot Topic prefers "delboy" when he's here.
Same load of nonsense, of course.
I smell a rat with all this global warming bullshit,i think it is just a covenient smokescreen for the real issue at hand, which is that the world is at the peak of liqiud fuels production.
How do you keep joe sixpack from going postal?..tell him that by reducing his consumption of fuel, he is saving the planet.
If you just said we are running out of the stuff,tough shit,then you have a recipe for joe sixpack to turn into joe flip out merchant.
Post a Comment
<< Home