NASA's James Hansen has weighed in (PDF) to ...
... expose the recent nonsense that has appeared in the blogosphere, to the effect that recent cooling has wiped out global warming of the past century, and the Earth may be headed into an ice age. On the contrary, these misleaders have foolishly (or devilishly) fixated on a natural fluctuation that will soon disappear.
As Hansen explains:
Weather fluctuations or 'noise' have a noticeable effect even on monthly-mean global-mean temperature, especially in Northern Hemisphere winter. Weather has little effect on global-mean temperature averaged over several months or more. The primary cause of variations on time scales from a few months to a few years is ocean dynamics, especially the Southern Oscillation (El Nino -- La Nina cycle), although an occasional large volcano can have a cooling effect that lasts a few years. The 10-11 year cycle of solar irradiance has a just barely detectable effect on global temperature, no more than about 0.1°C, much less noticeable than El Nino/La Nina fluctuations.
So what happened this winter?
The past year (2007) witnessed a transition from a weak El Nino to a strong La Nina (the latter is perhaps beginning to moderate already, as the ocean waters near Peru are beginning to warm). January 2007 was the warmest January in the period of instrumental data in the GISS analysis, while, as shown in Figure 1, October 2007 was # 5 warmest, November 2007 was #8 warmest, December 2007 was #8 warmest, and January 2008 was #40 warmest. Undoubtedly, the cooling trend through the year was due to the strengthening La Nina, and the unusual coolness in January was aided by a winter weather fluctuation.
Small long-term temperature changes have vastly more consequence than large short-term temperature changes:
The large short-term temperature fluctuations have no bearing on the global warming matter or the impacts of global warming ... A global warming much smaller than weather fluctuations has the potential for dramatic effects, e.g., by setting in motion future large sea level change, species extinction, and various other impacts.
His final point goes to the heart of a common misconception among many people:
Cold weather does raise an interesting point, though. People who do not like cold weather, and might have welcomed the idea that Minnesota may become more like Missouri or Massachusetts like Virginia, must give up that notion, unless they wish ill for a large fraction of the planet's inhabitants, both human and other creatures. We are going to have to figure out a way to keep climate zones pretty much where they are now (winters will continue to happen, as always). It is possible that we can still do that -- just barely. But I digress -- that will be in our next paper, almost finished.
I'll post that as soon as he does.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
The science behind a climate headline
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 6:39 pm
04 Mar 2008
For a man of Science...he sure does ask us to take a lot on Faith.
AGW is being defrocked in New York City this week.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:29 pm
04 Mar 2008
Permalink
stockypig Posted 10:54 pm
04 Mar 2008
Stockypig
Permalink
enki09 Posted 11:29 pm
04 Mar 2008
The data that we have shows us that at least one major factor in this system is changing. The composition of our atmosphere has shown a rise in the percentage of CO2 in its' mix of gases and a decrease of O2. There has also been an increase in the overall amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
This being the given it is interesting to consider all of the possible effects that this changing atmosphere might produce. For example, the earth is a giant capacitor in both literal and figurative terms. There is a difference in electrical potential between the surface of the earth and the ionosphere. The earth's surface charge is fairly constant but electrons are descending to and rising from its' surface constantly. Charged particles from the solar wind are adding to the sheath of electrically charged particles that surrounds the earth (the ionosphere).
Between the two charged "plates" of the ionosphere and the surface of the planet there is a mix of dielectric gases. In a capacitor the dielectric between the plates determines the amount of potential difference that can be created between the plates. The earth has a potential difference between the ionosphere and the surface of the planet of around 360,000 volts.
If the charge between the plates of a capacitor gets too large dielectric breakdown occurs and current can pass between the plates. Lightning is an example of this in our earth capacitor.What the dielectric is composed of determines how much energy can be stored between the plates. In the case of the earth we are changing the composition of our atmospheric dielectric. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on the system overall. :)
http://www.myspace.com/enki09
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 12:35 am
05 Mar 2008
(http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/4/155110/4814)
And as we see here, another prediction is verified.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:00 am
05 Mar 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 9:17 am
05 Mar 2008
But they lead me to make a point: scientists and environmentalists in particular need to learn from their tactics. Science is a language of equivocation and qualification, with constant questioning and critical analysis. Public relations and marketing, on the other hand, is a language of hyperbole and symbolic absolutism. When communicating to the public, science needs to find simple, concrete language and frame the need for action in that language, not the language of science.
Several years ago Republican pollster and "framing expert" Frank Luntz was asked by the RNC to test language describing global warming in language that would be least likely to cause public alarm and spur action to address the problem. His answer? "Climate change." Change is neutral, and can be a good thing. Global warming, on the other hand, sounds "dangerous."
So I propose new framing: "catastrophic climate imbalance."
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 9:24 am
05 Mar 2008
Permalink
roberticus Posted 3:23 am
06 Mar 2008
Roberticus
Permalink