Polar Ice sets new minimum

[Devonian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm

BBC official acknowledgment.

Just the BBC reporting what's said in it's usual unbiased way.

[eddie]

First part of the article says:

"Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said."

Looking further into the article, the Hadley Centre are forecasting the global yearly temperature anomaly to be +0.4C.

"Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century."

That would actually put it about equal with 2007 (+0.3970). The 8th warmest year recorded.

I honestly think the headline 'Global Temperatures to Decrease' is stretching things a bit.

[noggin]

With regard to the best estimate for 2008, it is unfortunate that comparisons have to be made with 1961-1990 and further back. If the comparison was done with 1991-date, it would be a more relevant comparison. As it stands, it gives off a general air of more warming when, indeed, temperatures have not risen since 1998 and are showing signs of dropping.

....sits back and waits for the downright rude and insulting responses that my polite and courteous posts seem to get these days....

[Yeti]

With regard to the best estimate for 2008, it is unfortunate that comparisons have to be made with 1961-1990 and further back. If the comparison was done with 1991-date, it would be a more relevant comparison. As it stands, it gives off a general air of more warming when, indeed, temperatures have not risen since 1998 and are showing signs of dropping.

....sits back and waits for the downright rude and insulting responses that my polite and courteous posts seem to get these days....

That last sentence is hardly polite! There's a sense of "asking for it" here I think!

I personally think it should be compared with both databases noggin - 61-90 and 91-07 so to get a bigger picture; one, that we are still a lot warmer than where we used to be and another to show that it's not too different to the last decade or so. However, that does not mean that I think La Nina is not responsible for the slight dip.

[biffvernon]

Harder to measure, of course, but what really matters is not the temperature of the atmosphere, but the heat of the whole atmosphere and ocean system. If overturning ocean currents take heat below the reach of sea surface temperature measuring devices, some folk may be lured into a false sense of security.

Since we know that the increased level of CO2 is trapping more heat, if we our thermometers do not rise we should be worried.

What goes down will come up again.

[SnowBear]

biffvernon, I noticed you said you were in the field of geology.

A question for you, it is fairly well known that the heat transference in the oceanic system runs from equator to the poles working as a rather large regulator. We have seen a cool down of the sea surface temperatures at lower latitudes and a melting of the ice caps, specifically sea ice, which logic would say is due to the water transfering from the lower latitudes over recent years when the sea temps were warmer.

The cooler waters at lower latitudes will eventually make their way to the poles, cooling down the sea temps around the ice caps.

Seeing as the ocean covers a vast part of our planet, and in my view is a big driver of our climate if not the biggest, is it possible we are seeing the melting of the ice caps as part of a larger oceanic cycle, one that on occasion carries more than usual heat towards the poles, and thereafter goes back to normal as other systems and mechanisms kick in due to the higher heat content previously?

I am aware of the Atlantic Conveyor and the Gulf Stream and I am not really looking at a reversal of these mechanisms, maybe something more subtle and possibly working at a deeper level in the oceans.

[Mr Sleet]

First part of the article says:

"Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said."

Looking further into the article, the Hadley Centre are forecasting the global yearly temperature anomaly to be +0.4C.

"Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century."

That would actually put it about equal with 2007 (+0.3970). The 8th warmest year recorded.

I honestly think the headline 'Global Temperatures to Decrease' is stretching things a bit.

Well if the global temperature in 2008 is lower or forecast to be lower than 2007, it is a fair headline. Much fairer than yesterdays " no Sun link to climate change" shocker.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The BBC article isn't suggesting that it disproves global warming- just acknowledging that there's a possible case for that argument, while still noting that there's plenty of evidence the other way.

The real test will come in a few years' time when the La Nina peters out, whereupon we will see whether that 1998 record can be beaten, or at least closely approached. If not, then there will be quite a compelling case for the plateau argument. If so, then chances are we'll look upon 1998-2007 as a blip, caused by 1998's exceptional El Nino. I would still personally back the latter scenario, though I won't say it's certain to happen, because in climate change, while some things can be stated as highly probable, there's very little that is 100% certain.

[VillagePlank]

The real test will come in a few years' time when the La Nina peters out, whereupon we will see whether that 1998 record can be beaten, or at least closely approached. If not, then there will be quite a compelling case for the plateau argument. If so, then chances are we'll look upon 1998-2007 as a blip, caused by 1998's exceptional El Nino. I would still personally back the latter scenario, though I won't say it's certain to happen, because in climate change, while some things can be stated as highly probable, there's very little that is 100% certain.

Yes!

By then we would be well into another solar cycle, and the current (very) short term plateua/cooling data attributed to La Nina will be somewhat unmasked because La Nina woud've finished.

Cold Winter 08/09, anyone? (MetO uses SST's in May as a predictor for following winter)

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't know why the nay sayers are parading this as though it is relevant. Eventually AGW will override all of the planets natural cycles but at the moment it is merely augmenting them. In the northern hemisphere we are currently a number of years into our 'cold 20' and in the grips of a moderate La Nina yet still our temps are set to be significantly above the rolling average. How can this be without the impacts of our induced warming?

As the article says this is not affecting the upward trend for temps and normal warming will be resumed as soon as possible.........with the added bite of the 10yrs of indo-chinese efforts to boil us.

Sadly some things are now well beyond repair and their impacts will far overshadow the temporary slowdown in our warming. A bit of a non-starter don'tcha think?

[biffvernon]

it is fairly well known that the heat transference in the oceanic system runs from equator to the poles...

Yes, but there are very large gaps in our knowledge of ocean currents beyond the surface waters. Deep ocean circulation might justifiably be called a science in its infancy.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

I have, with this thread, the same issue as I did with t'other of a similar (but reverse position) title.

Just to show of course that I am not biased :lol:

Biff - There our large gaps in our knowledge of many things. At a guess, I would say that Deep Ocean Circulation knowledge is much less in its infancy than Climate Change? Would you not agree?

[Devonian]

I have, with this thread, the same issue as I did with t'other of a similar (but reverse position) title.

Just to show of course that I am not biased :lol:

Biff - There our large gaps in our knowledge of many things. At a guess, I would say that Deep Ocean Circulation knowledge is much less in its infancy than Climate Change? Would you not agree?

How could that be? We live in the atmosphere, we've hardly visited the deep oceans - how could we know more about the deep oceans than the atmosphere?

Edited April 4, 2008 by Devonian

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Have we really visited the atmosphere more times than the deep ocean then?

Lets rewind a little here Dev and think about it. Realistically, out of the atmosphere and the ocean, which do you think has been studied the longest over time?

[wysiwyg]

Biff - There our large gaps in our knowledge of many things. At a guess, I would say that Deep Ocean Circulation knowledge is much less in its infancy than Climate Change? Would you not agree?

Chris - i think Biff is probably right in saying that our accumulated knowledge of the deep oceans is less than in climate variability. The extreme pressures in deep oceans means that obtaining data is much more difficult that obtaining data regarding the atmosphere given the number of airborne and orbiting objects compared to the number of submersed vessels. This is changing though and much resource is being commited to studying these ocean currents in more detail.

I tend to agree with snowbear on this one in that our oceans play a major role in climate regulation. However, I also agree with those (GW, Biffvernon etc) who express concerns for what may be the extremes of this mechanism. There may well be a long term effect relating to sea level rises that we can adapt to and manage as a race, but the shorter term effects on weather and climate may be a little more damaging regardless of which way global temperatures go.

Wysi :lol:

Edited April 4, 2008 by wysiwyg

[Devonian]

Have we really visited the atmosphere more times than the deep ocean then?

Lets rewind a little here Dev and think about it. Realistically, out of the atmosphere and the ocean, which do you think has been studied the longest over time?

Hang on, do you mean the deep oceans or are you changing to just the oceans?

I think the atmosphere is better studied then the deep oceans - which was your question?

My reasoning? We've been monitoring enough of the atmosphere for long enough to know what's going on, we've, as I said, made few visits to the deep oceans. I think ARGO may change that, but not yet.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Devonian

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Hang on, do you mean the deep oceans or are you changing to just the oceans?

I think the atmosphere is better studied then the deep oceans - which was your question?

Picking and nit spring to mind here :lol:

I am talking relatively, in terms of depth (i.e. ground to upper atmosphere, ground to ocean floor)

I am also talking the mechanics, in general.

Edited April 4, 2008 by ChrisL

[Devonian]

Picking and nit spring to mind here :lol:

I'm sorry but the question you asked was this "At a guess, I would say that Deep Ocean Circulation knowledge is much less in its infancy than Climate Change? Would you not agree?" Did you mean Deep Ocean Circulation (THC I presume) or not?

I am talking relatively, in terms of depth (i.e. ground to upper atmosphere, ground to ocean floor)

I am also talking the mechanics, in general.

Fine, then change the question and don't get at me for answering the one you asked...

Edited April 4, 2008 by Devonian

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Touchy touchy Dev. Please refer to the winky smilie.

Seriously though, I wasnt mocking.

Edited April 4, 2008 by ChrisL

[NorthernRab]

I feel that this article is somewhat comforting; the BBC are renowned for being a highly respected and very unbias and nutural reporting agency, so such a general summary report to be published is very nice to see. I think we need another five years until we can decide what is going to happen with future temperatures, it should allow us to be able to come to a better conclusion with a clearer trend emerging.

Edited April 4, 2008 by NorthernRab

[Mr Sleet]

The BBC article isn't suggesting that it disproves global warming- just acknowledging that there's a possible case for that argument, while still noting that there's plenty of evidence the other way.

The BBC article isn't saying either of those, it is just saying that global temperatures haven't risen since 1998 (fact) and 2008 is expected to be cooler globally than 2007. ( forecast)

Simple really !

[NorthernRab]

The BBC article isn't saying either of those, it is just saying that global temperatures haven't risen since 1998 (fact) and 2008 is expected to be cooler globally than 2007. ( forecast)

Simple really !

With a name like Mr Sleet, I'll take it you're quite a nutural, in the middle person? Haha, but I agree, this article isn't taking any side, it's just recognising that temperatures are not increasing at the moment which in itself, kind of disproves many theories that AGW will gradually increase. Like I said, we need a little more time.

[ghrud]

I feel that this article is somewhat comforting; the BBC are renowned for being a highly respected and very unbias and nutural reporting agency, so such a general summary report to be published is very nice to see. I think we need another five years until we can decide what is going to happen with future temperatures, it should allow us to be able to come to a better conclusion with a clearer trend emerging.

Actually, towards the topic of climate change I don't find them (the BBC) very balanced at all. I find it very rare for them to forward a counter argument to global warming. I think this is one of those rare occasions.

[SnowBear]

Yes, but there are very large gaps in our knowledge of ocean currents beyond the surface waters. Deep ocean circulation might justifiably be called a science in its infancy.

Many thanks for your reply biff, I find this area quite interesting. In my view the dynamics between the atmosphere and the oceans have to be taken as a whole, as one entity, the absolute boundary for the climatic system being the rock/water boundary of land/air on the continents, and sea floor/ocean in the oceans and seas. To get a true feeling of what is going on all the systems, cycles and mechanics across all the disciplines be it gravity, particle, fluid mechanics, heat transference, solar input, gas properties and much more besides need to be taken into account. This reason is why I sit on the fence as I do believe we are working with only part of the whole with regard to what the climate will do next.

I guess I see it as trying to create a particle/atomic theory and ignoring say the electromagnetic or the weak nuclear force, it comes to some conclusions, but ultimately does not reflect what happens in reality and can lead to misleading conclusions. If you look at the force of gravity, you can overcome the force of the whole of the planets gravity just by picking something up, it is an extremely weak force, yet, en mass it can be extremely powerful. Is the oceans a liken to the force of gravity, very small changes equating to very large effects on its surroundings.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Actually, towards the topic of climate change I don't find them (the BBC) very balanced at all. I find it very rare for them to forward a counter argument to global warming. I think this is one of those rare occasions.

I tend to agree there, I thought that article was quite refreshing in its lack of bias on the topic, as most BBC articles have historically presented the AGW case and rejected alternatives.