Thanks to a strong La Niña, this upcoming year is likely to have lower average global temperatures than have occurred since 2000, according to U.K. forecasters. (Note to climate skeptics: This is the point where you stop reading and write a press release gleefully announcing that the earth is cooling and global warming is a hoax.) For those of you still reading, the same scientists predict that 2008 will still likely be one of the 10 hottest on record. Says researcher Phil Jones of the U.K. Met Office, "The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years does not mean that global warming has gone away." Adds his colleague Chris Folland, "Sharply renewed warming is likely once La Niña declines." Well damn.
source: Reuters, Associated Press
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 2:14 pm
03 Jan 2008
For what it's worth (and not much since everyone hates me here), the Bailo Model also calls for a resumption of heating at a very rapid rate.
Permalink
Schoneveld Posted 5:44 am
05 Jan 2008
So let's, for a change, be receptive to some positivism and consider the possible effects of solar cycle 24 that just (on 4 January 2008) officially commenced. Solar cycles have a periodicity of around 11 years. The intensity of these cycles vary and some scientists believe there is a good correlation between intensity and global temperatures. For instance, the Maunder Minimum, a series of low intensity cycles some centuries ago, is being linked to the Little Ice Age. The fact that solar cycle 24 arrived almost a year later than expected could indicate that this cycle will be a less intense one, in other words it could herald the beginning of a cooler era.
Of course, we wouldn't want the world to go through another 17th century-like cold era. Although we think that global warming is catastrophic, another Little Ice Age is not something we would be looking forward to either. We like it the way we know it. Climate change - in whatever direction - is undesirable because it would require adaptation, which would be costly. In the extreme, one could say that 6 meter of sea level rise is economically as devastating as having all the cities in Northern America and Northern Europe covered by a kilometer of ice, like was the case in the last glacial.
So now comes the positive twist. If indeed the next solar cycles are of low intensity causing global temperatures to drop, the thing that could avert a "catastrophe" is the continuing emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. With a bit of luck the two effects cancel each other out. That would mean that it would save us the giant cost of looking for more expensive alternative energy sources right away and, more importantly, we don't have to deny the poorer nations the cheaper fossil fuels that have served us so well in the last 100 years or so. But as long as we don't know for sure whether a cooling trend is on its way, we should keep on talking and continue organizing mega-conferences with ten thousands of participants to ensure the world that we take the problem of climate change seriously.
Of course there is the remote chance that the evil climate change deniers are correct and that man-made CO2 is not causing any major global warming. After all, we know that CO2 increase is logarithmically related to temperature rise. Only the feedbacks that we have introduced in our climate models can reinforce the otherwise progressively diminishing effect of increasing CO2 concentrations.
The industry-funded deniers are already pointing out that global temperatures have stabilized or even dropped since 1998 despite a continuing increase in CO2. For them this is a demonstration of the theoretically diminishing greenhouse effect and a disproval of the feedback models of the IPCC climatologists. If the deniers are right, no global warming disaster will result from our present wasteful life style. Instead, we should prepare for a global cooling trend, at least if solar cycles are indeed becoming less intense and their effect on temperature confirmed. The good news is that the media can continue speculating about future disasters and the 2500 IPCC scientists are assured of continued governmental support in order to derive at a consensus position on global cooling.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:28 am
05 Jan 2008
It's just your opinions, not so much.
Permalink
henryjoe Posted 10:38 am
11 Jan 2008
NASA has revised its record of the hottest years
4 of those years are now recorded as prior to 1939, Amazingly the years of the dust bowls.
Only 5 of the hottest years occur after 1995.
It is good to know that the calculation method used to correct for annual temperatures were in fact faulty and only modofied after an outsider conclusiovely demonstrated NASA's error.
This is still significant regarding the recent rise in world temperatures. But knowing the reasons for the high temperaturs prior to 1939 would be helpful in understanding the current rise in temperatures. Science should be open to knowing why global temps have increased in the past, not just trying to strenthening the conclusionthat we are undergoing global warming.
Permalink