Topic: Interesting article

Interesting article 

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
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 carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
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 and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London 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 from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that 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 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 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 and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just

Re: Interesting article 

Hi there,
interesting reading.
They are many factors influencing the temperature of the globe. Sun, cycles, water movement etc...
Numbers can tell different stories.
Take the example of Europe. Europe is an unusually warm place for its position. That's because of the Gulf stream. Now if global warming happens, it will eventually kill the Gulf stream and result in a massive drop in winter temperature.
So on a local scale, it looks like cooling.
But we have to observe the full scale to appreciate, everything is interconnected.
There might be some localised cooling or even some temporary temperature stabilisation for a few years. But we have to look at trends, not isolated examples.
I don't believe that we can burn fossil fuel, generate heat through transport, heating, generate land heating by removing forest, put hot tar seal roads all over the place, concrete everywhere, destroy marshland and make whole areas deserts without impacting on the overall planet. It's just pure denial not to accept that.

I think that even if it's not as bad as predicted, we OWE THE FUTURE GENERATIONS to take a cautious approach and make changes now.

As an analogy, let's say you are driving a bad road in a storm and your passengers tell you it may be risky to keep you speed up. Instead of taking the precautionary approach, you decide to keep the speed. There's a good chance you'll make it OK but there's also a good chance that you will kill the whole crew.
Are we willing to take that risk? Is it too much to ask to slow down???
cheers
Roneco

Re: Interesting article 

Nice to see the mainstream media finally printing what is actually happening to our world rather than futuristic unsubstantiated guesses from the AGW crowd.
I could say “I told you so” two and a half years ago, but that would be uncharitable --- Oh what the hell --“I told you so”!

RonEco, History teaches you that the gulf stream has slowed each time it has cooled during the Younger Dryas period, then again 8000 years later, then again in the Little Ice Age, and never during a warming period, so your science is a little confused is it not?
You do not have to concern yourself with “IF” global warming happens, the Gulf Stream will close down, because you have just been told the opposite. Besides, that ‘junk science’ claim was based on a ‘projected hypothetical computer future analysis’ from the IPCC and their graphs are running at -500% inaccuracy -
See the TSI graph attached – the sun has to make up two and a half times it’s current energy output to bring the actual TSI back into line against the IPCC projected energy input into our oceans.
Last time I looked, we did not have an extra 'one and a half ‘Suns’ up there - how do you explain this inconvenient truth RonEco?

When you make exaggerated scientific claims like ‘killing the gulf stream’ at least make an attempt to back your claim with a reference such as - Meinen, C. S., Baringer, M. O. and Garzoli, S. L. 2006: ‘Variability in Deap Western Boundary Current transports: Preliminary results from 26.5oN in the Atlantic’. – Published Geophysical Research Letters 33: L17610. doi 1029/2006GL026965 –

Oh, you didn’t know your hypothesis had been falsified by this paper? Why am I not surprised that your data is five years out of date, but then again, you still desperately hang on to your fallacy don’t you.

As for your analogy, lets say you are insuring your house and the insurer says “I can give you cover for the ‘drop toilet outhouse’ only, and for a premium of only 5 times the capital value of your total property” – you should say “I think I need a ‘cost to benefit’ analysis before I accept your kind offer”.

This is what any prudent person or government, should have done in assessing the Kyoto ‘kind offer’ of 0.6oC reduction in world temperature providing you spend 5 times the GDP of the USA, say $70 trillion on reducing CO2.
That spending is guaranteed to bankrupt every western country foolish enough to take up the offer, while India and China say you can forget about us. Why do you think the Kyoto accord failed?

But we are all going to hell on a ‘run-away global warming express train’ if we don’t immediately act!

Oh yeah?
We naturally lost just about 0.6oC between 2002 and 2009 from a declining TSI so we have achieved that result without any intervention at all!
In the meantime, real science rather than IPCC ‘junk science’ has gained momentum and now we are starting to see the mainstream media swapping sides and presenting real science instead of unsubstantiated AGW doomsday scenarios.

Keep on presenting your global warming CO2 fuelled faith RonEco, and I will continue to successfully shoot it down.

Rex

Re: Interesting article 

One again Rex, you don't see the big picture of what I say and you focus on details and try to slam me with you numbers, statistics and science fanciness.
Your strategy to prove your point is getting pretty obvious and easy to recognise.
I'm getting bored with it. It doesn't deserve my time and sweat.
You miss the big point by focusing on details, numbers and statistics.
OPEN YOUR EYES I've suggested you before.
THINK BROADLY with a bit more heart than just pure science.
Tell me what is the cost for the future if we take no action???
Just plain predictable and boring is your approach.

See you later

Re: Interesting article 

Hello Ron,
Interesting points of view, yes ideally in many ways you maybe correct, so for that matter is communism.
Theoretical ideals!
I look around me I see an growing world population, these people all need to be fed, housed and heated. Yes we have a choice (some more than others) but what is more important "life" or "quality of life" I do not want to live back in the dark ages (as many of the world population do)
I look back at history, today I am living longer, and have a more fruitful life (I can agree this will depend upon your point of view.)
Here in NZ we are very lucky that we have a choice to go concrete, wood, steel sheeps wool. As Pete has said it is about choice and balancing all aspects, eco, money, longevity, cosmetic.
What differenciates us from animals is the abilty to adapt to our circumstances, from the beginning of time this has been science.
You may not agree with Rex (sometime I do not), but if you ask him a question he will always give answer, with the best knowledge that he has available.
TC

Re: Interesting article 

>> We naturally lost just about 0.6oC between 2002 and 2009 from a declining TSI so we have achieved that result without any intervention at all!

Again Rex you're cherry picking data, 5 year trend line is useless and misleading.

see http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-ocean-cooling-disprove-global-warming.html

for 50y trend.

Re: Interesting article 

TC,

"Interesting points of view, yes ideally in many ways you maybe correct, so for that matter is communism.
Theoretical ideals! "

One, it;s not communism, it's acre of the society as a whole.
Two, it's not theoretical, some peole are doing it.

I do not want to live back in the dark ages (as many of the world population do)

Guess what, I don't want to live in the dark ages either. That's exactly what I said earlier, we can make truly eco and comfortable house without the use of these materials.

"Here in NZ we are very lucky that we have a choice to go concrete, wood, steel sheeps wool. As Pete has said it is about choice and balancing all aspects, eco, money, longevity, cosmetic."

my friend, the balance is not here at all. Our greed is making us believe we have a right to these luxuries as in reality, we are stealing it from future generations. We don't need such big houses, we don't need all the fancy gear and useless stuff, we don't need to gorge on materialism and we don't need to build with crappy materials.
We are stealing from future generations.
There are ways to make very nice to live in, practical, truly eco friendly houses using only great materials.
Deny if you want, it's a truth. It may not be widespread but it's out there.
I hope people will work to make it a standard for the future while you guys are still stuck with PU foam, concrete, steel, pink batts and other crappy materials.
cheers

Re: Interesting article 

sorry it was
One, it's not communism, it's care of the society as a whole.
Two, it's not theoretical, some peole are doing it

Re: Interesting article 

Hello anon,

I précised too much – let me expand.
I have not ‘cherry picked’, this is the current trend, not one for a period 10 years prior or 20 years prior to that which would be ‘cherry picking’.

The current 7 year trend to which I am referring is taken from the satellite data and is accurate only for that period.
On its own it proves absolutely nothing about the future – this trend may continue down (as I expect when I also take sunspot count and TSI into account), or it might trend back up if Hansen’s prediction on run-away global warming finally kicks in.

Ask me in 5.5 years time at the zenith of solar cycle 24 peak and I will give you a finite answer.
Until then I am making a calculated guess, exactly the same as Hansen is making, and my hypothesis (guess) is equally valid with us both claiming a 90% probability factor for exactly opposite results.

If Hansen can make a claim for global warming, based only on the trend from 1970 to 1988 when he first made that claim, then my short period in rebuttal is equally valid. Neither proves the future.

Your best way of understanding ‘trends’ is to draw the letter ‘M’ with sloping start and finishing legs.

The first leg up is a temperature rise from 1910 to 1940 – the next leg down is the cooling to1970 – the next leg up is the warming to 1998 – the next leg down (admittedly at a small slope currently) is the slight cooling from 1998 to 2009.
If you take a ‘trend’ line for this 100 years, it is close enough to horizontal, so taking your argument to an illogical conclusion we can rightly claim that we have not had any global warming or global cooling during the last 100 years.
So we do not have any current problem?
Right?
This is what is wrong with your long term trend line – it indicates no trend at all.

Thanks - Rex

Re: Interesting article 

RonEco, I have told you before - you are confused.

You link all our obvious world ills to the man made production of CO2 and then claim they are one and the same.
They are NOT.

You ask what action we should take into the future – my answer:

IGNORE COMPLETELY THE TINY WARMING EFFECTS OF CO2 AND TAKE ABSOLUTLY NO MITTIGATING ACTION.

And:
ELIMINATE ALL FORMS OF POLLUTION:

REDUCE MANKIND’S DEPENDANCY ON ALL FOSILE FUELS, MINERALS, NATURAL UNSUSTAINABLE RESCOURES, WASTE OF WATER, WASTE OF FOOD ETC.

And how do we do this?
We eliminate man’s greed, we eliminate exploitation, we eliminate man’s comfort, we eliminate man’s ambition for luxury, we eliminate man’s choice, and we eliminate MAN.
Tell me RonEco, can you name any great world leaders who tried to introduce these measures for the common good?

Rex

Re: Interesting article 

Rex,

you are getting lower and lower in your arguments.
Are you running out of interesting comments?

Not worth me answering these pathetic last comments.

See you when you have better stuff to say

Re: Interesting article 

Hi Ron,
re your comment.
We don't need such big houses, we don't need all the fancy gear and useless stuff, we don't need to gorge on materialism and we don't need to build with crappy materials.
You are correct we do not "need", there lies the problem, I "want" and I do. Along with most others.
Why should I not "Have" if I have worked hard for it!
I may have incorrectly worded my meaning for communism.
Your ideas are a theoretical ideal
Communism is a theoretical ideal.
The problem is neither will ever work.
You have made a comments that we are stealing from future generations, again your are correct, so you are indicating that i should suffer for these future generations, unfortunatly I am NOT a martrye.
Again I ask the simple question what is more important
"Life or Quality of Life?"
Apology to Rex for seeming to be un sensative at this particular time.
Surely the simple question is how can you satisfy my wants with minimal impact of the enviroment. This is reality. Then should be the short to medium goal
TC

Re: Interesting article 

Hi Rex

Hope all goes well for you next week.

Your well researched postings certainly give balance to the climate change discussion - can't call it a "debate" because there is not much balanced counterviews being presented.

With regards one of your earlier postings, I just saw this:

Industries involved in responses to climate change now outstrip the global aeronautics or defence industries, according to a new study by HSBC Global Research, which forecasts global
revenues from climate-related businesses will surpass US$2 trillion by 2020. Citing the 2006 Stern Review, which predicted US$500 billion in climate-related business activity by 2020, HSBC says the world passed that mark in 2008, with a 75% increase in revenues in the sector in one year, to $US530 billion.
The US, Japan, France, Germany, and Spain account for 76% of global climate revenues, with low-carbon energy production, energy efficiency, control of water, waste and pollution, and climate finance leading the way. Energy efficiency recorded the
highest investment returns for the 2008 year, followed by carbon finance at 24%.

More is at http://www.reuters.com/article/GCABusinessofGreen/idUSTRE58H2FM20090918

End of quote.

Re: Interesting article 

Thanks anon and TC for all your good wishes.

Hello RonEco - Now that I have your attention let me expand. My brutal analysis is too close to the truth.

Did you not know that a reduced world population is the objective of some of the more extreme NGOs and some factions of Greenpeace?
Why do you think the extreme ‘green’ movements offer such resistance to allowing the 3rd world to lift out of poverty with cheap electric power?
They demand uneconomical wind and solar power as the only choice they will permit under the guise that all else will pollute with CO2.
This demand stifles any possible economical progress and has stalled progress on Kyoto.

After all, we cannot have all these millions of presently underpowered people drawing on our ever reducing resources by lifting their standard of living up to the developed world status now can we?

Look at what has happened in China. Their population now demands meat instead of rice and aspires to all American luxuries with an ever increasing drag on worlds resources.

Did you know that Al Gore now has access to US$3 billion for his fighting fund to establish a ‘world government’ through the UN? His stated purpose delivered in a speech this year was “this will be the only way to control world population”.

Can you not see your own unwitting part in this plan?
I don’t believe you support world population control, but you are certainly preaching the way to it.
All you have been espousing is reduction, reduction, reduction with no balance of efficient consumption for the reasonable and proper use of world resources.
You are full of unworkable ideological theory – with no balance on understanding the reality of this world.
I find your unworkable philosophy a bit sad really.

I wish you well - Rex

Re: Interesting article 

Wow certainly an interesting thread !!
lots of bitching going on..... Are you guys married ???

Ok allow me to add my 5c........

I can only agree that use whatever good materials are available now to build whatever you can but build with a view to being ECO friendly and build for an uncertain future........
My thoughts are these

The world is changing and fast

The world is warming fast

The world is fast going beyond being able to find enough cheap energy to maintain this pace of human growth......

I really think that is the main point to bear in mind for anyone lucky enough to be able to build now with a view to the future....
Build now whilst materials are affordable because believe me once the world has consumed enough oil to the point where demand far outstrips supply. Image what effect this will have on the price of goods...
this really is something that people really need to discuss and come to an understanding...
I dont think any of us can predict accuratly what the affect will be,
it could be a well managed transsition or it could be all out world war... who know......

but i just cant imagine life ,and in particular standards of living remaining the same............

I read today that the UK with its 70+ mill. population is for the first time importing gas, and from Russia !!!!!.. 50% of its needs... hell that cant be good..... what happened to the north sea... well 30 years of rape and pillage happened to the north sea.... its emptying quick, Brits are good at that though !!

So in a world where resourses are forecast to be in decline and economies based on growth cease to exist....(amongst western countries that is )

I would say building now with a real eye on the future, using whatever excellent materials are available right now at this price has got to be good.

just wish i had the cash to be able to do it myself.... unfortunately i will end up in one of sceptics caves !! ha ha no doubt....
look guys this is just my personal opinion and i aint spoiling for a fight so please reply in a good spirit !
thanks
anon !!

Re: Interesting article 

REX have you taken the time to view the Crash Course lectures I linked to on the other thread?
I'd be interested in your opinion of the information it presents. You have already touched upon a number of the issues it does.
Interested...

Re: Interesting article 

Hello Samian,

Yes, as soon as you had posted, I spent the next 5 hours viewing your link, repeating a number of the clips over again. (my wife was not impressed with my tardiness for dinner).
I completely agree with every statement made with my limited knowledge in this field (my expertise is not in the financial sector) and it frightened the hell out of me.

I view this hypothesis as very likely outcome rather than just another wacky idea, and far more certain than the chance run-away global warming.
Just how world Governments and the financial sectors will change back to balance the books, other than re-introducing the ‘gold standard’, I honestly have no clue.

Like RonEco said – “this is a must view” for all thinking Ecobob members.

Rex (the link is repeated here)
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

Re: Interesting article 

Hey guys, these videos look really interesting. I watched some stuff about this a while back but it wasn't so well organised. It's quite frightening stuff... but something everyone should be aware of.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

Cheers

Carlin

Re: Interesting article 

Hello anon !!, (10.54pm)

I read what you say and find myself in agreement with you – well almost anyway. You have probably figured out by now that I think global cooling is more likely than global warming but neither of us will know for certain until at least 5 years time – we await what the future holds.

Can I suggest to all ‘anons’ who intend to post more than just one comment, that you have the courage to label your self in some ‘unrecognisable’ way just like say “TC”.
The reason is that I can recognise some ’anons’ by their style or content of writing and this allows me to personalize a response.
You do not have to agree with me (and the majority of Ecobob readers probably do not), but only to be polite and not to be ‘personal’ otherwise I will respond with equal or worst cutting comment.

So anon !!, as an architectural designer who has worked on ‘group house’ designs and Eco designs I offer you this advice.

The basic NZ construction of light timber frame is one of the most advanced in the world. That might be a questionable comment tor someone from Europe where they have a vast selection of different materials and methods not available here. Why? The size of our population, the availability of our common materials and the fact that we are called the ‘shaky Isles’ all contributes to our long established method of building.

Is there room for improvement and innovation – you bet there is!
So your basic code compliant construction is sound but seriously lacking in Eco input that is of a higher standard and that should supersede the code – this will eventually change. But until it becomes the code, you can expect to pay at least 10% - 15% more than a code compliant structure with basic Eco features such as passive solar design and a solar collector.
Add in more Eco features such as under-floor heating, and the sky is the limit.

Have a look at ‘ingoratsdorf’’s Passive Solar House on this website as an excellent example – maybe a cave is not the answer for you after all.

Rex

Re: Interesting article 

The comment about returning to the 'dark ages' could apply to the UK if we are to heed the warnings in a report by the energy regulator Ofgem a few days ago. Power blackouts and restrictions on electricity supplies to factories could be real threats to industry as the UK has been slow to face up to an unstable world energy market. Whatever the future scenario, consumers are likely to experience hefty gas and electricity price hikes, and as result will see the savings to be made from solar power as increasingly sensible. An efficient solar thermal system such as the LaZer2, designed by the UK's leading solar thermal designer and manufacturer SolarUK, will provide virtually all a family's domestic hot water requirements during the warmer months.

Many are hoping that the report will spur the Government into supporting clean energy.

Re: Interesting article 

The worm is turning.

One bastion of global warming hype, the BBC has now started reporting global cooling instead.
At last we are being offered the other side of the science instead of only the ‘junk science’ from the
IPCC.

Tom Feilden, the science correspondent on the Today programme reported as follows:

“Professor Mojib Latif, from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, has been looking at the influence of cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation.
When he factored these natural fluctuations into his global climate model, professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt.”

Another commentator noted “The natural climate cycle of the AMO entirely accounts for the apparently worrying acceleration in warming that occurred from 1970 to 2000 and which is now reversing. There is therefore no need to postulate any temperature enhancing effect due to AGW because there is no unexplained component of the temperature rise left to argue about!
The long term temperature trend remains at 0.6degC per century and is entirely un-alarming”.

Most of you will know that I have been saying this for some time, that the PDO and AMO along with the reduction in the Sun’s TSI have always accounted for natural climate change and have now reversed the warming naturally occurring between 1970 to 2000, with man’s contribution via CO2 being insignificant.

It is nice to see some confirmation via the media at last.

Rex - (You can read the full report here)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/09/an_inconvenient_truth_about_gl.html

Re: Interesting article 

mmm ... I'm not so sure Rex, after having lived 40+ years in the UK I know the BBC changes like the weather (or the climate :) ).

I liked this comment on the article posted by someone called Dunklezhan.

<<<< 'The complex message'? What on earth is complex about it? gosh, if learned BBC reporters can't work out how to explain that one, can I have a job please? Watch and learn....

"New research suggests there may be a temporary stablising of the global planetary temperature assisted by a natural ocean current temperature cycle. After perhaps [insert time period], the average temperature is expected to continue climbing again."

Even simpler:

"climate change could going to settle down for a few years, then resume"

and if you want a headline:

"Climate Change takes a quick breather SHOCKA!"

its just NOT a complex message! Have I missed something? >>>>

Pete :)

Re: Interesting article 

Hello Pete, You may be right, the BBC may well revert back to type, but at this moment, I don't feel like a 'lone voice in the winderness' anymore.

Some very astute comments follow this report as you have picked up on, in your post.

Rex

Re: Interesting article 

I don't think your a lone voice but your probably the most passionate and vocal of the "to be convinced" on this forum.

I follow the global warming debate threads on here with interest but seldom post on them as I have a foot in both camps and remain to be convinced either way.

There is one thing though that I am convinced on. Whether the temp is going up or down, CO2 linked or not, anthropogenic or not, the politicians have seized upon this issue and are using it for political agendas. "Climate change agenda" seem to me to be the new "anti communists" or "all islamic people are bad" scare story. As an anachist < :)) > I'm having none of it

Pete

Re: Interesting article 

Hello Pete, I respect your position as I was once an AGW believer some four years ago until study showed me ‘the error of my ways’.
Now, as a joint anarchist, I rail against that cause as I believe the annual US$2 trillion plus can be better spent helping the 3rd world poor.

I do not object to that proportion spent on energy efficiency and removing our dependence on oil, but I hate the spending on the associated ‘CO2 religion’ that I perceive as a ‘scam’.

I agree with your analysis and see this as a form of ‘green communism’.

Rex