Global warming 'dips this year'

Here is some more of the article above.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

I don't see a problem, The earth has heated and cooled for millions of years and will keep doing it.

You can't be serious. The problem is in the past there weren't the millions of people living and working along the oceans coast lines who will now be flooded out as the earth warms and the oceans rise.

So, in your estimation, the problem is one of population rather than warming, per se?

The problem that we as humans care most about is the affect global warming has on the population so if there is no population then no concern. Of course it will also affect other types of life too but if we aren't here we can't solve or even be concerned about that problem. So the only practical problem to solve is how to protect ourselves from climate change when in goes beyond the narrow ranges the we as a industrialized population have experienced so far. Since the earth goes through natural climate cycles which have varied over geological history between 12 degC and 22 degC (we're now averaging 14 degC so in this natural cycle all signs point to global warming) this leaves us with not doing anything to make the warming happen faster than we can adapt to. But since the start of the industrial revolution that is exactly what we have been doing by burning fossil fuels adding significant amounts of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases into the atmosphere. So climate change which may have taken 10's of thousands of years to happen naturally is accelerating due to our activities which is now commonly accepted by most of the scientific community so it will happen with our or at least our kids lifetimes.

Assuming the premise of human-caused warming is true, what evidence is there that the warming trend is occuring faster than humans can adapt (keeping in mind that there is a difference between "can" and "are willing to")?

I've come to the conclusion for myself that Global Warming is indeed happening and we as humans are contributing to it in a significant way from many sources which I can't reproduce here but I suggest you start by looking at the wikipedia entry on the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As for the "can" vs "are willing to" I agree its a big difference and if this discussion string it any indication there will never be any common willingness to do anything until it is too late no matter what the time frame.

Very nice non-answer.

It's only since the beginning of the 20th century that the ability to measure temperature that accurately has been wide-spread. Also, the majority of those measurements come from population centers where as population increases, localized temperatures also increase (the mass of civil structures retains heat). Very few historical temperature readings are from the open countryside away from localized influences. Ocean temperatures have not wiggled. Global warming is still junk science.

Yet just about every glacier on the planet is melting, which takes a tremendous amount of heat (converting ice to water). CO₂ levels are high and CO₂ captures blackbody radiation from the Earth and heats the atmosphere which of course leads to a warmer climate. Just about every scientific organization involved has gone on the record saying Global Warming is occuring and is caused by man.

So guest, we'll wait and see.

Unfortunately, we cannot know with any degree of precision what the "natural processes" are. The available data set is just too small and imprecise to make discussions about standard deviations or rate of change meaningful. All we can say for sure is that the geologic record indicates periods of much warmer weather and much higher concentrations of CO₂ that the climate has successfully "recovered" from. We have to keep in mind that we are defining "normal climate" by our very limited perspective. I do not discount the mechanism of warming through atmospheric carbon and methane loading, but I think the "community" is far too eager to discount the ecosystem's ability to absorb these changes and maintain equilibrium. I think we're drawing a prima facie relationship between two factors (carbon and temperature) that we have only recently been able to measure with any precision. The processes in the atmosphere and biosphere that influence the relationship between these factors are too poorly understood to draw any meaningful conclusions (one way or the other). Thirty years ago, science said we were on the brink of another ice age and global cooling was going to be the end of civilization. I think we're going off half-cocked again here, too.

You Wrote: "I do not discount the mechanism of warming through atmospheric carbon and methane loading, but I think the "community" is far too eager to discount the ecosystem's ability to absorb these changes and maintain equilibrium."

Maybe we're discounting it because when we measure atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and methane, they are rising, not declining.

You Wrote: "I think we're drawing a prima facie relationship between two factors (carbon and temperature) that we have only recently been able to measure with any precision."

I don't think there is nothing prima facie about saying that CO² and Methane have absorption spectra corresponding to Earth's blackbody spectrum. Or that doubling the amount of methane in the atmosphere will lead to higher absorption of the spectrum, or that the spectrum corresponds to IR which corresponds to vibrational transitions in molecules, or that when a molecule vibrates a lot and is surrounded by molecules that don't that it transfers the energy (heat). The heat has to go somewhere. Don't forget that CO2 and Methane are relatively heavy and hang around close to the ground in the lower atmosphere. The region we are talking about that is "warming" is rather small, just the surface of the Earth and a couple miles of atmosphere.

Alright, so having made my argument, let me just say that I appreciate your reasonable approach to this debate. I too think we'll be just fine and adapt. I'm also against any sort of carbon trading system as it is ineffective and just a placebo.

So then, is it your belief that the current trend of global warming (regardless of the cause) will not be catastrophic?

I'm not sure what you mean by catastrophic. I don't think it's the end of society or anything like that, but I do think local climate effects due to large scale changes in the climate of the planet will effect people, especially the poor who can't move much. Already you are seeing a desertification of the southwest, but they can just move to new areas. People in Africa won't be so lucky. Relocation isn't an option for everyone.

Look, I'm a capitalist at heart. I feel we should be dumping dollars into fusion and solar power research. Instead we subsidize ethanol (awful, awful mistake). Do you have any idea how cheap fusion power would be? You know how to make a terrorist ineffective? Take away his funding. We've got to attempt to find a new fuel, for political reasons as much environmental.

Yes, by catastrophic I mean the type of society-ending disaster that Prophet Gore preaches. I agree with you that the reckless measures governments are taking are the real threat of global warming. Rather than taking a measured, systematic approach to the problem that could produce some results, a form of panic has taken hold and unreasonable measures are being promoted as the only hope.

Climate change has been with us since the beginning. Localized flooding and desertification of entire regions is nothing new in the history of our planet. It is the reason early human cultures were nomadic - as the climate changed in one area, the tribe had to move to new areas. It wasn't until we learned to irrigate crops that anything changed, and then we simply accelerated the desertification of one area to artificially enhance the climate in another.

I understand that relocation is not an option for a large percentage of the world population; in a perverse way, Ted Turner got it right earlier this week: if we reduce the world's population, global warming will no longer be an issue. Not only will whatever effects humans have on the environment be reduced, with less of us here the effects will be less noticed. Win-win.

I agree that there are no easy answers. Fossil fuels are only a step in our technological development as we climb the Kardashev scale, but I see the possibility of a new "Dark Age" that places an artificial emphasis on conservation at the expense of innovation and the development of new technologies.

You Wrote: "Climate change has been with us since the beginning. Localized flooding and desertification of entire regions is nothing new in the history of our planet."

That's true. I'd even go so far as the desertification of northern Africa and the middle east may have forced enough people into the river vallies (Nile, Indus, etc.) that a critical mass for the formation of civilization was the result. However, to compare that climate change with today is inconsistent in that the rate of change of the environment today is much much faster and populations are much much larger. The consequences are potentially much worse.

You Wrote:"I understand that relocation is not an option for a large percentage of the world population; in a perverse way, Ted Turner got it right earlier this week: if we reduce the world's population, global warming will no longer be an issue. Not only will whatever effects humans have on the environment be reduced, with less of us here the effects will be less noticed. Win-win."

This statement assumes that everyone has identical contributions to global warming. The truth is, the richer you are, the larger your contribution. We could kill millions in Africa and it would have no effect on global warming. He might as well have said "let them eat cake".

You Wrote:" but I see the possibility of a new "Dark Age" that places an artificial emphasis on conservation at the expense of innovation and the development of new technologies."

Look, this is the dark ages for me. Cut funding for science year after year, creationism, torture, never ending deficits, devaluation of the dollar....bad times.

So all of this begs the question: if we accept the premise that the current climate change and its consequences are man-made, is it a result of the industrial age or simply because human population has reached a critical mass? As you say, killing millions in Africa will not significantly alter the warming trend. But those millions are the ones most likely to be affected by the changes. Removing them drastically reduces the consequences of climate change. Problem solved - not through a reduction of carbon emissions, but through a reduction of population. So what causes the problem: carbon or population? As I said, a perverse way of looking at the issue, but from a purely scientific perspective, is it any more perverse than the solutions currently being proposed? (I am not seriously advocating eliminating any segment of the population, merely exploring the boundaries of the discussion. Not trying to descend into unreasonableness, just trying to define the problem.)

You all should look up what the World Health Organization was doing in Africa to help this very situation. You will find it in articles dealing with their desire to "innoculate" females in Africa against tetanus. The problem is that they laced the tetanus shots with hcg and then required these women to get boosters. What did this do? Effectively rendered them sterile... How? Hcg is the hormone that the female body releases when it is pregnant. Being injected, the womans body builds up an immunity of sorts to the hcg (kind of like an anti-hcg) similar to a cold vaccine. Does this suck? Yes it does. Who gave WHO the right to take generations away from these families/communities/nations (however you want to put it)? This wasn't only done in Africa, it was also shown to have been done in Mexico and in the Phillipines.

The problem is the dramatic unequal distribution of wealth and resources, not population.

So you are a socialist?

I agree and also would like to point out that there can be (and are) many other sources that produce CO2 (or other greenhouse gases). Just because CO2 can be "man-made" and just because it is a greenhouse gas, doesnt mean it is the major cause of GW or that by forcing control of man-made CO2 emissions we will solve the GW problem (if one even exists). It only means that we tried.

O₂ levels are high and CO₂ captures blackbody radiation

I remain unconvinced about the precise causes of GW, but I must point out that high CO₂ concentrations could be the result of GW (as opposed to the common assumption that CO₂ has to be the cause of GW). Higher temperatures accelerate the decay of organic matter. And higher temperatures also decrease the solubility of CO₂ in the oceans, causing a net transfer of CO₂ into the atmosphere. Climate models involve complicated interactions between dozens of approximately measured variables. Beware of overly confident conclusions, especially when accompanied by slogans like "the debate is over".

The simple answer to all the CO₂ and Methane build-up, is to kill all animal life off, right down to microbes - the lot.

That would leave the vegetable kingdom to reign, for a short season.

Then because the plant life would suck out all the CO₂ from the air, in it's usual way, and for plant life to exist, microbes and animal life are required, the plant life would die off too.

A sterile Earth, with nobody here to enjoy it would be the inevitable result.

Of course, those who believe in evolution would say that's fine, because something would evolve from the rotting slime of the dead and dying plant life, and soon there would be people once more, with printed encyclopaedias, high level culture, technological progress and more.

Wake up folks, and realise the "Global Warming" scam for what it really is, a means of diverting resources and attention from what is really happening, behind the scenery.

Kind Regards....

Thank You Sparky! The sky is falling, the sky is falling... whoa, wait a minute we are heading for a damn ice age... whoa, no hold on and get the main loser from the sore/loserman campaign and have him head the global warming farce. Nudge, nudge we can make a killing there... Who pushes the most for "green flourescent screw in lamps" why GE (the company who makes them)...

It is just a farce

Cheerio I am off to go wait for the ocean waters to rise up and be at my front door...

and with plant life thivng, the air becomes oxygen rich, making it suceptable to fires in this environment, releasing CO2 .........., wait, did'nt earth go through this before, and will again.

frankly, CO2 is increasing,

but with all the reports on both sides rebutting each other about global warming, it looks like a stalement.

As far as global warming is concerned, people are making alot of money off of that and fear will help support that and continue to do so.

phoenix911

To All, I saw an interesting video on the National Geographic website about long duration photography of a glacier melting. After the initial calving of a large section (that may have been over extended anyway) I saw no significant change.

The scientist monitoring the climate shift may be over reacting but perhaps it will stimulate society to change it's dependence on crude oil.

Fusion could be a very viable alternative if the fuel were Helium 3. I leave you to enjoy the thrill of discovery on your own. But there is an estimated 900 million tons of He3 trapped in the Moons regalith.

Dragon

Interesting discussion, something to think about; 30 years ago when an imminent ice age was predicted, do you remember what was happening at the time? Oil crisis, prices shot up. Fast forward, here we are and it's global warming, and guess what same scenario, just a different name this time, and it's also accompanied with a massive downturn in North American manufacturing. So the politicians look good by appearing to do something while the economy takes another trip down the pipe. Everyone is so distracted by the threat of 'global warming' that they miss the big picture.

The only one making any real headway is the fool Dr Suzuki, who after getting his Phd couldn't find a decent job and switched to TV. Soon he started to fly the global warming flag his celebrity increased as did his speaking fees. This sort of thing is what political handlers study and guess what; a new band wagon.

Can you guess that history is also very close to my heart?

have a great weekend, it's finally getting warm here and i think i will go out and burn a tire to make my down payment on global warming we do have the one ton challenge up here in the Great White North, and I for one prefer tropical.

Global Cooling was only predicted by a few scientists in the 70s. The vast majority were predicting warming at the time. This "global cooling predicted in the 70s fact" is just untrue. Here are some articles to show you.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/02/survey_says_70s_global_cooling_1.html

When does it end guys? How long are you going to push garbage facts on us to make your case that Global Warming is a hoax, or is not caused by man. You quote bad sources or none at all, repeat hearsay and see conspiracies in the media and major scientific organizations. Your getting hustled and you don't have a clue.

Why should I care either way? I don't own it.

You shouldn't.

I'm backing down from the Global Warming debate on CR4. There comes a point when you realize that 10 people are disagreeing with you and one or two occasionally back you up that you just sound shrill and you can't win. I'm out of this debate.

Take heart Roger, there are more people backing you up than you realize.

It's just that when naysayers, bah-humbuggers, conspiracy theorists, creationists, status quo proponents, trolls, would-be-Neros et al crawl out of the woodwork to weigh in on this topic, most of us take the position that we have better things to do with our time than engage them.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud your tenacity, and you are the only one here basing your statements on solid science, as opposed to hole-poking, harrumphing and horseshit, but better you than me.

But what the hell, now that I'm here, to the rest of these esteemed colleagues - just how long do you think we can pump shit into our atmosphere (China is building one new coal fired power plant A WEEK), denude the earth, poison our water, grow our population like a supervirus and consume energy at our current rate per capita and NOT have it result in drastic negative changes to our environment?

Global warming is just the tip of the (melting) iceberg, but it is as good a place as any to start.

Of course there are going to be miscues, hidden agendas, propaganda, false starts and unintended side effects in attempting to address the problem(s).

There is also a good honest buck to be made doing so.

But it is clear to anyone with half a brain cell and an ounce of common sense that doing nothing is not a sustainable option.

If you don't want to be part of the solution, that's your choice. But if not, at least get the hell out of the way.

Isn't methane a much more problematic gas that is "farted" into our atmosphere by our bovine friends? Our steaks, carne asade, jerky, etc., etc.? I guess this is not brought up 'cause no one wants to cut back on the meat(s) and/or become vegans (I vote for keeping the beef)....

Cheers & keep eating those Steaks...

Actually, water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas (according to NOAA's website) and we don't hear anyone proposing to mitigate that...

"Isn't methane a much more problematic gas that is "farted" into our atmosphere by our bovine friends?"

Yeppers - itiz. And going vegan does not get one off the flesh eating = flatulence hook; just to add insult to injury. Anyone who ever had heartburn after eating lettuce, only relieved by a long burst of flammable gas knows about that. Methane is 25 times more polluting than CO2, by the bye. Our burgeoning population, aided by more and more efficient ways to intake energy (in the form of flesh from fish, fowl and protein products from these and meat animals) is the source of enormous amounts of methane. Now, bio-fuel is jumping into the mix - methane is a byproduct of the fermentation process to produce and deliver bio-fuel, as well.

Whether the earth's weather mean temperature of 54 degrees, which has risen 8 degrees since 1887, is due to greenhouse pollution was caused by mankind or not is eclipsed by the fact that hydrates (primarily methane in solid form) on the seabed and in Arctic tundra are now starting to re-release into the atmosphere during the current massive upsurge in mean temperature; is not a pseudo science anecdotal fact. It is just how things are... Meanwhile I monitor the ablation numbers at the end of every fall. And I take note of how fast we go through sun screen creams every year. My home now averages 968 kW per year (much of which comes from our own PV electric system) as opposed to 1976 kW from five years ago, in personal initiatives to reduce the rate of GW. Still waiting to buy a plug-in hybrid or compressed air powered vehicle, however.

These are the issues that I find of concern on behalf of my kids and grandkids - just for the record.

Munky,

Thats interesting, when people don't see it your way, how your try to degrade them by name calling.

As I stated in an earlier post, Thats what Roger did. It seems of lately though, he stopped the name calling.

Heck, I read more of his posts because of it, because I am not as aware as the for/or against on GW. I just want to get more information, but one has to tread through all of it.

Yes, we are putting more CO2 in the atmosphere maybe sooner than if it were to happen naturally, you have to realize whether its GW or Global Cooling it all cyclic.

And trying to stomp out people that don't share your opinion by the rhetoric such as your post, does not help in your favor.

For more reason then creating a smaller carbon foot print, I myself given the choice on shorter trips, I'll walk instead of drive.

Out of curiousity, what are you doing about it.

phoenix911

If Saint Gore was so factual with this farce, why is it that school children shown the film 'an inconvenient truth' in the uk are given a disclaimer saying that there are something like 2 dozen inaccuracies being pushed down their throats in it. This was hammered out in a court of law (house of lords or something) with the environmentalists for both sides present and accounted for. The verdict? Gore is a charlaton. How green is the guy if he is loading up his big, private jet in order to fly to India to give a seminar for a 100 people? He lost his bid for the presidency, so he had something to saty in the limelight. What is his worth now that he is giving speeches around the world vs. if he had only been the prez? He is rolling in dough baby, with deep pockets and a bigger bank account for him and Tipper ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X89B3fUSMx8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf-Tg-s5m8w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvIR2HItwp4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYD7evTpAFI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4W3FI1ZGUk

Roger dropped out because he was outnumbered here.

I'm sure he's still monitoring this thread. He's pretty passionate about GW.

I was in a thread where he was stumping for Al Gore, got into a "spat about GW" with him, I took a middle of the road because of the contradicting reports either way. He did very little to convince me, unless you call name calling because I didn't take his position. My only response to him was global warming is occurring and we humans are not going to be a part of it. i.e. extinction. That may be the natural order of things.

It was petty and unimpressive.

phoenix911

The rants from both camps leave me cold. The only stat I pay any attention to are the ablation figures, every fall. No other "Canary" sings as loud or true.

I may, however look at and add in the ablation figures for Mars if the science data can be confirmed that is coming out of the astrophysics arena of late pointing to sun spot activity as the variable that should have been included in climate models from day one when massed computing power and the networking science made it practical to mass compute these models.

Hey Folks,Been watching this thread. Roger may have been right about only a few scientists backing global cooling, BUT, it, like global warming was getting the most air play on the tube, radio and in news papers.

So my question to you is: what are we going to do about it? Do we back global warming, debunk it; back global cooling, debunk it, go for something like climate change?

Maybe we as scientists should focus not on the current political fad but what truly needs to be done so that we can say in all honesty that we did everything we could.

Just my two cents worth.

See Ya. Blue

This planet is on a voyage through space and time. I am but an insignificant passenger on it. To think that I could change the ultimate destiny would be incredibly self aggrandizing.

I seek to enjoy my short time here in harmony with others and the planet. But the hysterical man who stands in my path may suddenly contact terra firma with his Pink keister.

So are you anti-GW people saying that nothing should be done about our dependence on fossil fuels? GW aside, a fossil-fuel based energy economy certainly leads to a more polluted planet right?...or is the science not complete yet on the health benefits of breathing in vehicle exhaust?

Not to forget the whole American dependence on a sand pit thousands of miles away which I'm not too keen on.

Guest ask yourelf that question first.