Global warming 'dips this year'

[Sonexdd]

Source: BBC NEWS

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

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.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

[fascisthunter]

1. And the Right Wing Will Try to Use This to Deny Global Warming

as being man-made. :rofl:

[Vincardog]

2. I smell bull shit

[Javaman]

12. The odor is overwhelming to me as well. nt

[Xenotime]

37. You don't have to smell it to know what it is.

[easy_b94]

3. I don't belived this BUT this winter has been very cold down hurr in the ATL

[Viking12]

7. The headline is 'true' but is taken out of context and completely irrelevant

As stated in the article, it's the trend that matters.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."

'Cooler than last year' is like saying 'Tim Duncan is 'shorter' than Kevin Garnett' they're both still tall when compared to broader averages.

[Viking12]

4. So?

What's the point of posting this?

[RedEarth]

5. Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years

ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) — The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

[Uncle Joe]

36. I wonder if World War 2 had an effect on the 1940s uptick?

I imagine they were burning a lot of carbon then.

[TCJ70]

6. I think Chicago set some kind of...

...snowfall record this season, or something. Or it was very much above average.

[dysfunctional press]

38. and we're supposed to get a little more this weekend...

i sure wish that spring would get here for real.

[Winterblues]

8. This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998,

BS...A dip in temperature means they haven't risen. What sort of convoluted logic is that? La Nina does not effect Africa or Europe and that seems to be where the greatest changes have occured. I find this very suspect indeed.

[Seeking Serenity]

9. Here's one

:rofl:

I couldn't help it. The thread header was just too tempting.

[magellan]

10. This is why "global warming" is a misnomer

"Climate change" (the term also used in the article) is more accurate.

Note the article also says: "Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend."

The long-term warming trend is what's melting arctic sea ice, expanding desert regions, et cetera. These incontrovertible changes over a very short period are what climate change nay-sayers fail to adequately address.

[Orsino]

35. Global warming is the cause...

...and climate change--of which there are many sorts, some of which we haven't dreamed yet--describes the results.

That long-term upward trend is going to be a killer, and we mustn't let Big Money and Big Ignorance confuse weather with climate.

[fshrink]

11. Glaciers and icepack

are just too stubborn to understand science. I suspect they hate our freedom too.

[Javaman]

13. hit and run poster. someone has an agenda. nt

[Viking12]

14. Yep. Google the username and you'll find a track record of denial.

S/he's called global warming a scam in previous posts here at DU.

[alarimer]

15. Things are going to fluctuate from year to year

but the overall trend is upward. One especially cool year is not going to reverse the trend.

[bhikkhu]

16. Perhaps someone has the answer to this:

Assuming the sun's heat is a constant input to global temperature. There must be a constant outflow or we would have steadily increasing temperatures; so the outflow should be simple radiation into space.

Inflow and outflow should both be pretty stable. The atmospheric changes (greenhouse gases) favor greater heat retention, so the system warms to a corresponding new equilibrium point.

All well and good...but how does the planet suddenly cool? Neither outflow or inflow should have changed...my one thought is that perhaps the melting of ice cover is effectively the release of stored "cooling energy" - the transformation of states absorbing thermal energy. The scale of the energy involved should be calculable, but not by me.

So if this makes enough sense for anyone here to tell me it is nonsense...

[kimmerspixelated]

17. I believe there are always many variables, however

when the ice melts and raises sea levels, what happens is the increased ocean mass is slowed a bit, which slows the currents responsible for our temps. The scenario in THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW is quite probable. But not today.

[bhikkhu]

19. But ocean currents are more moving temp from one place to another

than any determinant on global mean temp. If I understand things correctly....that is.

Looking at the planet as a closed system of a fixed temp; give it one input only (sunlight) and one output only (radiation). The mean temp should vary only with changes that effect the rates of input and output - ice cover increasing radiation loss, ocean cover increasing the effect of the sun's thermal input.

Of course there is more to temperature than the surface temperatures we use to calculate global temps...move heat energy to the bottom of the ocean, for instance, where nobody is looking.

[skids]

31. You have a pretty good handle on it already...

It's got to be a combination of sinks for heat and heat going places we don't measure, unless you entertain stuff like that guy with the theory that the earth core's "reactor" is dying.

As an example an ice mass could trap heat by transitioning state when exposed to localized extreme conditions. The higher average temperature allows the temperature to go above freezing in a particular area and melts the ice there, which doesn't come back very fast when the extreme goes away due to it now being salt water not fresh water. So because of a small heat wave, total average temperature has gone down, some of the heat applied to melt the ice. Ice is not the only such sink, of course.

People who say extremes don't matter and just keep your eye on the average temperature fail to consider this (yes, you Ben.)

I'm not a climatologist but I'd bet your right on the money with ocean currents carrying heat down in where the SST sensors don't see it, being they are such a huge influence on just about everything. Those might be the most dominant reason.

Plus clouds are a major factor in greenhouse capture and being random about their average value, even if we have more of them there can be off years.

I'd suggest looking around on realclimate.org.

[Sonexdd]

22. Just asking...

Why do you presume that the water level would go up if the ice melted. Most of the ice on this planet is underwater and since ice is less dense than water... put some ice cubes in a glass of water and check the water level once the ice has melted, you will find the water level has gone down!

[NickB79]

23. Warming water expands

Even if only sea-based ice melted, the water level will rise as the thermal expansion of ocean water occurs.

"put some ice cubes in a glass of water and check the water level once the ice has melted, you will find the water level has gone down!"

I don't know where you obtained your PhD in physics, but when floating ice melts into ice water, the water level stays the same. It doesn't dip or increase in volume at the phase transition.

[Sonexdd]

24. You don't have a clue, do you ?

or are you making up this stuff as you go along.

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/122Adensityice.html

When water turns to ice it expands by about 9% in volume, when water is heated it can expand to a one hundred of 1 percent, look it up !

[Viking12]

25. Yeah right, Nick's the one w/o a clue, hahahahahah

The volume of water is far geater than the volume of sea ice. Any loss of volume to the conversion of sea ice to water will be dwarfed by the volume increases due to thermal expnasion.

[NickB79]

27. Yep, just making it up as I go along, I guess

Just like these guys: http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html

"In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced."

[skids]

32. Try your experiment again...

...this time, don't use so much ice that it sticks to the side of the glass. And make sure there aren't air bubbles trapped underneath.

And welcome to DU :hi:

[mainegreen]

33. "Most of the ice on this planet is underwater"

That's like saying 51% is most, so the other 49% doesn't exist.

Vast, vast, vast amounts of ice are on land.

[booley]

42. Uhh, not quite

A great deal of the ice is ON LAND.

Antartica and Greenland in particular.

So what happens to the water level of your glass if you add ice?

[sutz12]

18. Look to China and India...

Their particulate output, as a part of their pollutants, has been very high lately. We may have a case similar to the 70's, when the sulphur and particulates in pollution were overriding the greenhouse gases and causing cooling. "Global warming" really took off after the first go-around of the Clean Air Act. That concentrated on visible pollutants and ignored the invisible ones (CO2, methane).

[xioaping]

28. China air so dirty

[ohio2007]

40. Look to the sunspots

global warming is real but.....

if you want the truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIpHQ7qraVo&feature=related




can you handle the truth?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj-4t9drUlM

[Sonexdd]

20. The World Bank's Climate Profiteering

(Here is a recent article from alternet, not exactly a right wing site...)

The World Bank's long-running identity crisis is proving hard to shake. When efforts to rebrand itself as a "knowledge bank" didn't work, it devised a new identity as a "Green Bank." Really? Yes, it's true. Sure, the Bank continues to finance fossil fuel projects globally, but never mind. The World Bank has seized upon the immense challenges climate change poses to humanity and is now front and center in the complicated, international world of carbon finance. It can turn the dirtiest carbon credits into gold.

How exactly, does this work, you ask? ... http://www.alternet.org/workplace/81083/?page=entire

[fascisthunter]

26. Go Sell Your Global Warming Denial Somewhere Else

I think your attempt to deny it is disgusting. Global Warming a serious issue that this country and our government are not doing enough even though there will be dire consequences from our inaction. Yet we still have people like you peddling LIES and SPIN to deny such a dangerous subject matter. There is no way you could be so misinformed, that's why I do consider you to be disingenuous. If I were a mod, I'd ban you. This shit is just too serious to even allow folks like you to enter the debate. Get out of our way.

[Jennicut]

29. I just ignore people like this, they will never learn until its too late

My husband says they remind him of the people in a disaster movie. They deny that such a thing exists or will happen until its right upon them and then they bite it if you know what I mean. As far as climate change profiteers go they are making piddly squat what Exxon and Mobil and others make from oil, natural gas, etc. Carbon credits are not the total answer, just part of the equation. I get sick of people critizing Al Gore and others over this. Al Gore took his own money and spent it towards trying to educate people about climate change. What has George Bush ever done that was positive with his money? Or Dick Cheney? Hell, even Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson believe in climate change. What the hell is wrong with these people? Meanwhile the artic is melting at an ever fasting rate. That is not "normal".

[ohio2007]

41. What is "normal" ?

Maybe we are living in an abnormally calm period.


What if an Ice age from 10,000 yrs ago is normal or perhaps
steamy dinosaur habitats in the "Arctic circle" millions of years ago may actually be closer to normal . If ice core samples taken in Antarctica only date a couple hundred thousand years.....
?
Say, what was going on in those places previous to the big freeze ?
Continental drift?
Maybe earths erratic orbit isn't being plugged into the equation either?
I'm not saying go ahead and trash the planet. I think conservation of resources is good but the idea that a TAX will make it all go away go away go away if policy " X " is implemented to save the planet today.
Carbon credits can buy bridges in Brooklyn.

btw,
don't let hubby do your thinking for you. ;)

Guess I'm one of those who will "wait and see"

/screed. you can put me on your ignore list now.

[humbled_opinion]

44. LOL

so you will shut down my very right to dispute/debate global warming by calling me a denier. I will be the cause of the planets demise and so I guess in your logic I should be locked up for the good of all...

You Friend are an anti-humanist.

[fascisthunter]

45. What's That... Did Somebody Say Something

durrrrrrrrrrrrr

[greenman3610]

This is weather, not climate

Climate progress has a good rundown on this


http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/03/hansen-throws-cold-water-on-cooling-climate-claim/

As Hansen explains:
Weather fluctuations or ‘noise’ have a noticeable effect even on monthly-mean global-mean temperature, especially in Northern Hemisphere winter. Weather has little effect on global-mean temperature averaged over several months or more. The primary cause of variations on time scales from a few months to a few years is ocean dynamics, especially the Southern Oscillation (El Nino — La Nina cycle), although an occasional large volcano can have a cooling effect that lasts a few years. The 10-11 year cycle of solar irradiance has a just barely detectable effect on global temperature, no more than about 0.1°C, much less noticeable than El Nino/La Nina fluctuations.

good graphic from the NYTIMES show global temp fluctuations vs La Nina:


also, NASA's yearly climate review is worth bookmarking:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth_temp.html

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

[greenman3610]

21. This is weather, not climate

Climate progress has a good rundown on this


http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/03/hansen-throws-cold-water-on-cooling-climate-claim/

As Hansen explains:
Weather fluctuations or ‘noise’ have a noticeable effect even on monthly-mean global-mean temperature, especially in Northern Hemisphere winter. Weather has little effect on global-mean temperature averaged over several months or more. The primary cause of variations on time scales from a few months to a few years is ocean dynamics, especially the Southern Oscillation (El Nino — La Nina cycle), although an occasional large volcano can have a cooling effect that lasts a few years. The 10-11 year cycle of solar irradiance has a just barely detectable effect on global temperature, no more than about 0.1°C, much less noticeable than El Nino/La Nina fluctuations.

good graphic from the NYTIMES show global temp fluctuations vs La Nina:


also, NASA's yearly climate review is worth bookmarking:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth_temp.html

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

[samsingh]

30. could be for many reasons connected to global warming

[KansDem]

34. So, to some there is no global warming but if there were, it's temperatures will drop this year?

:silly:

[ohio2007]

39. and thats the inconvenient truth behind buying into any theory

theories have a way of changing as fast as the climate.
In the 1970's scientists wanted to cover the icecaps with a black powder to get the ice melting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64&NR=1

take it with a grain of salt but history rears its ugly head that way and conveniently gets swept under the rug.

[Viking12]

43. Wow! You're a true fountain of wisdom!

Oh, wait. you're just a crank repeating every debunked RW lie about climate change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/