Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 2:10 am
You last visited January 22, 2017, 12:47 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

"What happened to global warming?

Published:

Last Edited: October 11, 2009, 3:29 pm

Plant trees which give off oxygen as a by-product of their growth aside from being aesthetically pleasing.  Then by the time the cycle changes back to global warming there will be more shade, preventing heat from absorbing into the surface.

Wonder how global warming scientists would do on "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader"?

_________

 

BBC NEWS

"What happened to global warming?

 

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that factthat the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbondioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, hascontinued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue thatman's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which wehave no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is theevidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy fromthe Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from theSun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output andcosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare thosetrends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr PiersForster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year'sIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn fromWeatheraction, a company specialising in long range weatherforecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us farmore than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they arealmost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that heplans to tell the international scientific community at a conference inLondon at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook fromWestern Washington University last November, the oceans and globaltemperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warmand cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadaloscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positivecycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealedthat global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode hasreplaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us ofabout 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming andcooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small partcompared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate aboutman's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible forfuture climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation andocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the wholehost of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of whichare accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatureshave never increased in a straight line, and there will always beperiods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend inglobal temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, isclearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month MojibLatif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwidetemperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences atKiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climatemodellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic;he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before theoverwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures willreach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It ispossible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period ofglobal cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about whatis causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it ishotting up."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Published: 2009/10/09 15:22:46 GMT

© BBC MMIX

Entry #1,471

Comments

1.
Comment by GASMETERGUY - October 11, 2009, 4:17 pm
I have maintained for years now that the only reason our "elected" leaders have promoted this climate change mantra is so they can pass legislation and new taxes to control more of our daily lives. There is no solid evidence, only intrepretations subject to bias, to support the notion the earth is warming. Not thirty years ago all the rage was the coming ice age. When that did not occur, they changed their tune to the earth is warming.
Climate change is nothing more than an attempt to "control" the population by both major polictical parties. Soon we will have only one polictical party and they will be communistic in nature.
2.
MADDOG10Comment by MADDOG10 - October 11, 2009, 4:42 pm
GASMETERGUY - Today, 4:17 pm
I have maintained for years now that the only reason our "elected" leaders have promoted this climate change mantra is so they can pass legislation and new taxes to control more of our daily lives. There is no solid evidence, only intrepretations subject to bias, to support the notion the earth is warming. Not thirty years ago all the rage was the coming ice age. When that did not occur, they changed their tune to the earth is warming.
Climate change is nothing more than an attempt to "control" the population by both major polictical parties. Soon we will have only one polictical party and they will be communistic in nature.
____________________________________________________________________________
Absolutely correct...!
   I've maintained that this was a natural occurance all along. Al Gore just capitalized on a natural occurance and a lot of people thought he was right. Wrong again.! The Nobel Prize committee must also be preparing their future also.   Totally pathetic.
3.
time*treatComment by time*treat - October 11, 2009, 5:06 pm
Since the avg temps won't cooperate year-to-year, the globalist-vampires have renamed this scheme "Climate Change", that way they are covered either way.
4.
konaneComment by konane - October 11, 2009, 5:55 pm
Thanks GASMETERGUY! Your assessment seems to hit the bullseye. We haven't had two parties since Reagan. Presidents since him, also Carter before him are all globalists .... we're collateral damage left in their wake.
5.
konaneComment by konane - October 11, 2009, 6:06 pm
Thanks Maddog! I believe Gore managed to capitalize on it due to predictions of Armageddon which should have happened around the time he started squawking about global warming.

Funny it isn't happening .... and if my dog's coat is indicative of temps this winter it's going to be exceptionally cold.
6.
konaneComment by konane - October 11, 2009, 6:08 pm
Thanks Time*treat! Globalist-vampires ..... LOLOLOL! Think they're figuring out we're seeing right through them.
7.
JAP69Comment by JAP69 - October 11, 2009, 7:54 pm
I'm freeeezin.
8.
jarasanComment by jarasan - October 11, 2009, 9:11 pm
We should enjoy our lives.   These global warming morons have nothing better to do than try and have us submit to them.   These morons should show us some commitment and kill themselves since they breath out CO2 all frinking day long! I think the kings clothing is materializing. And the reality is that we are (and have been) in a very beneficial cycle of good weather since the last ice age broke, take note: there are 6 billion people on the planet. An ice age will occur again, Yellowstone induced or part of the natural cycles. We are temporary inhabitants of this planet.... remember 99.9% of all species that have lived on this planet are extinct. Extinction is our destiny unless we can develop a path off this island to the stars. If these globalists were serious about REALLY saving us from ourselves we would be looking at the stars not some green jobs crap bs etc.
9.
jarasanComment by jarasan - October 11, 2009, 9:52 pm
Correction: 7 billion people on this planet, all at once, at the same time, all over the place.
10.
Comment by joker17 - October 11, 2009, 10:51 pm
I always thought CO2 was really really good for plants and trees....lol

More CO2 = more ocean surface algae, trees, and plants...etc....................................What a concept.
11.
Comment by joker17 - October 11, 2009, 11:03 pm
I believe about 80% of the oxygen we use comes from surface algae. Shouldn't they be algae huggers?....lol
12.
konaneComment by konane - October 11, 2009, 11:25 pm
Thanks JAP! Dunno about your area, but have seen some might chilly nights this fall, many more than usual.
13.
konaneComment by konane - October 11, 2009, 11:32 pm
Thanks Jarasan! Hey they want to rule the world as they see it, not live and let live. If that were so they wouldn't foment so many wars. Since Nam wars aren't working so well so they have to pull out the bogy-man of earth destruction that WE not they caused. Wonder what their next blivet is going to be?
14.
konaneComment by konane - October 11, 2009, 11:37 pm
Thanks Joker! Always though CO2 was what trees 'breathe in' to sustain their lives, unless TPTB have so convoluted science to reflect their more desirable answer.

LOL on the algae huggers!

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.