I know we're supposed to be going into a period of cooling, at least according to people who don't believe in the scientific method. For those who do however, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reports in its "Climate of 2008 July in Historical Perspective":
Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record for July and the ninth warmest for the January-July year-to-date period.
It is worth noting that El Niño-Southern Oscillation conditions remained in a neutral phase during July. And we're still at a solar minimum.
And no, I don't think the monthly data tell us much about the climate -- but I know reporting it annoys the deniers, and I am trying to enjoy my vacation. As for what the peer-reviewed scientific literature forecasts for the next decade, temperature-wise:
- The "coming decade" (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on record, globally.
- The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors' calculations began in 1960.
- The fast warming would likely begin early in the next decade -- similar to the 2007 prediction by the Hadley Center in Science.
That is why they call it global warming.
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
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 10:40 am
18 Aug 2008
Bring it on! The Bailo Model has forecast just such rapid rises while IPCC engineers were stringing their abacuses to try and make the model match the data.
Plus the Bailo Plan welcomes the predictions of the Bailo Model. Warmth, rain in the desert, new swatches of arable land, clean air from hydrogen vehicles, less need for heat, better fuel efficiency...
Permalink
DB2 Posted 10:56 pm
19 Aug 2008
If you look at the three decades of satellite data, such as the NSS data of the lower troposphere found here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 ...
you can see that July 2008 (at 0.048) is actually the 15th warmest July in the last 30 years.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:20 pm
19 Aug 2008
Drop the term global warming and emphasize the retention of energy from the Sun trapped by GHG that is intensifying the energy in the global atmospheric and oceanic systems?
Wind and temperature and preciptitaion extremes that result from the higher energy level would be a more accurate and easier to understand metric. Free from the "It's cold outside, where is your global warming now" dimbulb limboob talking point mythology.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
James Cripwell Posted 5:10 am
20 Aug 2008
A second point is that when a cooling trend follows a warming trend, the cooling trend starts at the maximum of the warming trend. This is what is now happening. So, of course, the current temperatures are close to the maximum; the earth' temperature is currently going through a shallow maximum. What counts is the slope of the "climate temperature" against time. Proper anaylsis shows that for all 5 sets of temperature anomalies, the current slope is negative. That is what matters.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:15 am
20 Aug 2008
"And no, I don't think the monthly data tell us much about the climate -- but I know reporting it annoys the deniers, and I am trying to enjoy my vacation."
This language shows a lack of respect for people who have a differing viewpoint from yours - which is why I do not label myself and environmentalist; they are far too intolerant.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 7:34 am
20 Aug 2008
This language shows a lack of respect for people who have a differing viewpoint from yours - which is why I do not label myself and environmentalist; they are far too intolerant.
There's some truth in that, and it makes the argument that has been used here that because nuclear energy hasn't converted many greenies-of-record, it must have been bad, and still be so, stupid. That they ever opposed it at all shows they were part of the problem while still young, and that's a condition that age rarely reverses.
The people whom Romm disrespects, and I do too, are those with no point of view, just a will to inflame debate, often with character assassinations of honorable men, and then claim victory, and perhaps some kind of reward, because they have made their targets angry and, putatively, proved that the debate is ongoing. Got their targets off message. Maybe Romm hasn't actually annoyed them, just rung their dinner bell.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink
Steve Berry Posted 1:49 am
21 Aug 2008
Permalink
GreenHick Posted 12:24 pm
21 Aug 2008
It's one thing for Galileo to challenge the Jesuit geocentrists. It's another for his hairstylist to do so.
A critical part of critical thinking is thinking about the limits of one's competence to contribute to knowledge on a subject.
We do not pull out our slide rules to contest the results of theoretical physics. Why this?
Because we can look outside at the sky, or because we have been socialized to oppose change that the power elites oppose--the Jesuit geocentrists of our day.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:17 pm
21 Aug 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 5:08 pm
21 Aug 2008
MadMac, science doesn't work by honesty and dishonesty. There is something called peer reviewal, experimental validation, falsifiability and so on.
A scientific hypothesis becomes a theory only after it is validated by a lot of data. There is a huge debate involving a lot of intelligent people, when everyone tries to find holes in the theory. A "dishonest" person will be exposed very rapidly in science.
A scientific consensus is derived only after a lot of this exchange. True there will always be dissenters, but that is the nature of science. We always cultivate a healthy scepticism about every theory.
Scientific consensus happens only when the theory fits to the facts. Having a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere is clearly an abnormal thing, and there is sufficient evidence to prove that it does a lot of bad things to our climate.
You don't "trust" persons in science, it is not politics nor religion. There is no question about honesty/dishonesty in this. Either you have a scientific bent of mind, or you don't. It is as simple as that.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:52 pm
21 Aug 2008
I would argue there is sufficient evidence to say that it PROBABLY influences the temperature of the climate. There is an assumption made by almost everyone that ANY CHANGE is bad. And that assumption is probably false. As Jared Diamond points out, there will be winners and loser in climate change.
"You don't "trust" persons in science, it is not politics nor religion. There is no question about honesty/dishonesty in this. Either you have a scientific bent of mind, or you don't. It is as simple as that."
That does not explain the dissent within the scientific community concerning climate change. And there is dissent. But on Grist, when dissent is highlighted, it is portrayed as either:
a. Ill-informed (that's the generous interpretation).
b. Malicious - that the scientists or scientific organization in question is full of bought off charlatans.
In short, while I agree that dumping a lot (although I don't really know if going from 385 PPM to 400 could be defined as "a lot" - let's be honest, a lot of scare mongering is going on here) of anything into the atmosphere or into the water supply is probably a bad idea and should be curbed, I also note that there is simply a lot of dishonesty floating around concerning this debate on both sides of the isle.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 6:40 pm
21 Aug 2008
Most people on grist do not study environmental science, but they care about the environment. Some of us have scientific background (I am a research student in computer science) but we do not necessarily follow the fine details of the scientific debate on climate change.
But I assure you that a lot of brilliant people are actively participating in this debate. A huge list of countries have convened their national academy of top scientists to follow this debate and they came to a consensus.
In science, consensus doesn't mean that there will not be dissent. For example, there are a few scientists who question the mass energy equivalence, or the absoluteness of the speed of light, and so on. Such rival theories will be on the fringes of the scientific community because they don't fit the facts as well as the competing ones.
Having this dissent is good for science, but it is not good for politics. They help to inflame the passions of uneducated people who know nothing about climate change or about evolution.
Coming back to the topic of CO2 levels, in physics phenomena happen when a threshold is reached. For example, water boils at 100 degree Centigrade. If you have a beaker of water which is at 100 centigrade, you can be sure that very soon all the water disappears as steam. Below 100 degrees, there is always some formation of steam but the content of water in your beaker remains stable.
Similarly, we know that there is a terrible chain reaction that might happen if CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach above 450 ppm. The temperature goes up and up in a spiral. Earth will then be uninhabitable for most life forms. There's enough evidence for this chain reaction. It has been validated in lab experiments and in computer simulation. The only question is about what exactly is the required the threshold of CO2 levels : 450 ppm or 400 ppm or something else..
The talk of winners and losers of climate change makes no sense when you realize the magnitude of the problem. As CO2 levels go upwards, sure there will be some minor effects - like abnormal cyclones, sea level rises. But this is just an indication of what is going to come.
I mean, you should be very thick skinned to turn a deaf ear to what the majority of scientists say on this. It is not fear mongering. We don't need to fear anything, because we can solve the problem.
Human society progresses by abandoning problematic behavior - For example, rats cause plague, so they were culled. Flourocarbons deplete ozone layer, so there were banned. Now we know that coal is dangerous for atmosphere, so we should stop it. It is just common sense.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:25 pm
21 Aug 2008
You should have written "Now we have strong suspicion that rising CO2 levels very probably have negative side effects that could be extreme. Therefore, we need to curb CO2 output."
But you went from CO2 to coal - as if there is NECESSARILY a cause and effect, when you know there is not. CO2 can be sequestered. Therefore, Coal doesn't need to be stopped - the CO2 outputs across the board need to be curbed.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:47 pm
21 Aug 2008
the Jesuits of the early 17th century were not necessarily committed to geo-centrism. But they seem not to have liked implications, regarding Eucharistic doctrine, which Galileo's Saggiatore gave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair.
Whether the much-admired Jesuit Saint, Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino, had much to do with the silencing of Galileo, should indeed be a big cultural battlefield amongst Catholics.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:09 pm
21 Aug 2008
With sequestration technology, we can keep using coal. Let's first demand that all existing coal plants fit in that technology or get shut down. Fair right ?
But you know what, this sequestration technology is big bunkum. It is prohibitively expensive. I am not against it. I will just leave it for the market to decide if it is worth the investment. Nuclear will beat coal CCS hands down (and is a true sustainable energy unlike coal)
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink