The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The question has been avoided again and Dev you must have read it There has been no net gain in warmth in over ten years yet CO2 is much above the 1990s level. Why aren't we warming if CO2 is THE DRIVER? Come on AGW is so understood and irrefutable...but hey we ain't warming anymore...oh maybe the sun and its cycles is the controller.

BFTP

[laserguy]

Present the evidence that these 'far from fully understood' natural factors are known by you to be the cause of the warming seen. Then, please refute the really rather well understood physics of ghg's. I'm all eyes.

Well,the Earth has seen much more rapid and profound changes than the bandied around figure of 1C over the last 100ish years,Dev! Y'know,times when we weren't around with our wicked ways to change things. Why does change now have to be caused by us,just because we happen to be here? Yes,under controlled laboratory conditions CO2 can be shown to be a GHG. So can water vapour of course,the proportion of which makes CO2 pale into total insignificance,and water vapour is far,far more efficient in that role. Atmospheric H2O would be sensitive to tiny changes in solar activity,amongst other factors,but would be difficult to tax!

As Blast... says in the last post though,what is supposed to happen with ever increasing CO2 levels is actually doing the polar opposite. When the global temp spiked in 1998 due to a combination of a strong El Nino dumping vast oceanic thermal energy into the atmosphere and a highly active sun,CO2 has failed to retain it. That's plain to see. WV failed too,despite it's superior quantity and potency. In case you missed it Dev,here's a salient link I posted in another thread:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=88520025

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

The above quote in bold,taken from the article,illustrates the double talk and the lengths gone to in order to deny the facts and the acceptance that they are wrong. "there's been slight cooling...or less rapid warming" Eh? Either the oceans have cooled or they haven't. Like I said,it's getting (no,it's gotten) to the point where it's impossible to uphold CO2's effects.The amounts added to the atmosphere just keep on rising day after day,year on year but the anticipated (or dare I say it,hoped for by governments) effects just fail to materialise. Climate played ball for a while,as they knew it would courtesy of natural cycles. The wheels are falling off now as the sun and all the related effects kick in. Ask yourself this,Dev: Why does government and media leap all over any weather event that could,in the eyes of J.Public be interpreted as manifestations of 'global warming' and use it as a tool to beat and batter,yet the incredible events of the outgoing winter (which would utterly contravene their mantra) got only the briefest of mentions in the mainstream?

Finally,HP is also right: purely from the point of view of the proliferation of flora and fauna an increase of CO2 is a good thing,whether or not it is perchance accompanied by a rise in temps. A cooling world,even at the same level as the alleged warming,is a seriously grave situation. Now that would be something to deny out of fear and loathing.

[Devonian]

The question has been avoided again and Dev you must have read it There has been no net gain in warmth in over ten years yet CO2 is much above the 1990s level. Why aren't we warming if CO2 is THE DRIVER? Come on AGW is so understood and irrefutable...but hey we ain't warming anymore...oh maybe the sun and its cycles is the controller.

BFTP

As the man from the Hadley Centre said to me when I put a similar question to him (devils advocatingly) 'We need to measure climate change over thirty years or so'. In other words ten years just too short a time period, there is no reason why it might not be 'noise' (La Nina for example, we both know it will be interesting to see what happens when it fizzles out). It's clear from looking at global temperature series than the inherent yearly variation, noise, around the trend is several tenths of a degree, yet decadal AGW is around that amount...

Edited March 23, 2008 by Devonian

[Devonian]

Well,the Earth has seen much more rapid and profound changes than the bandied around figure of 1C over the last 100ish years,Dev! Y'know,times when we weren't around with our wicked ways to change things. Why does change now have to be caused by us,just because we happen to be here? Yes,under controlled laboratory conditions CO2 can be shown to be a GHG. So can water vapour of course,the proportion of which makes CO2 pale into total insignificance,and water vapour is far,far more efficient in that role. Atmospheric H2O would be sensitive to tiny changes in solar activity,amongst other factors,but would be difficult to tax!

Yes, right, LG! WV is a feedback, not a forcing. But adding CO₂ is a forcing and forcings have feedbacks...So a tiny CO₂ forcing also has a feedback. Why is it you think a 'tiny' change in the Sun has feedback warming but a tiny CO₂ not? Scientist have worked out that doubling CO₂ has a forcing of more than a wm2 yet there simply isn't any evidence solar changes are that big. That's why I'm one of those detested AGWer - those pesky and irritating things facts!

As Blast... says in the last post though,what is supposed to happen with ever increasing CO2 levels is actually doing the polar opposite. When the global temp spiked in 1998 due to a combination of a strong El Nino dumping vast oceanic thermal energy into the atmosphere and a highly active sun,CO2 has failed to retain it. That's plain to see. WV failed too,despite it's superior quantity and potency. In case you missed it Dev,here's a salient link I posted in another thread:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=88520025

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

The above quote in bold,taken from the article,illustrates the double talk and the lengths gone to in order to deny the facts and the acceptance that they are wrong. "there's been slight cooling...or less rapid warming" Eh? Either the oceans have cooled or they haven't. Like I said,it's getting (no,it's gotten) to the point where it's impossible to uphold CO2's effects.The amounts added to the atmosphere just keep on rising day after day,year on year but the anticipated (or dare I say it,hoped for by governments) effects just fail to materialise. Climate played ball for a while,as they knew it would courtesy of natural cycles. The wheels are falling off now as the sun and all the related effects kick in. Ask yourself this,Dev: Why does government and media leap all over any weather event that could,in the eyes of J.Public be interpreted as manifestations of 'global warming' and use it as a tool to beat and batter,yet the incredible events of the outgoing winter (which would utterly contravene their mantra) got only the briefest of mentions in the mainstream?

Finally,HP is also right: purely from the point of view of the proliferation of flora and fauna an increase of CO2 is a good thing,whether or not it is perchance accompanied by a rise in temps. A cooling world,even at the same level as the alleged warming,is a seriously grave situation. Now that would be something to deny out of fear and loathing.

I see you couldn't resist 'that' kind of language

I'm not denying any facts and I'm not part of some conspiracy.

Why would you expect AGW to 'retain' EN's warmth? EN/LN is part of the natural variability of the Earth's climate system (though I'm quite sure significant AGW would effect it). SO, to get at the AGW trend we need to allow for EN (and LN.... ).

Edited March 23, 2008 by Devonian

[laserguy]

Why would you expect AGW to 'retain' EN's warmth?

Why wouldn't it? We are told it retains the warmth of the sun. Does it matter where the warmth comes from? Turns out it's retaining nothing anyway,like the man said "we've observed a slight cooling" (of the oceans). Did you mean 'CO2' instead of 'AGW' in the above quote? Not sure if that was a trick question or not!

WV must become a forcing of sorts if it increases or decreases through whatever mechanism. I'm thinking solar of course,not just in terms of activity but cycles such as BFTP mentions and other unknown interactions. I can see where you're coming from Dev in that I appear to be running around in circles looking to 'blame' anything but our CO2,but I simply cannot accept that such a truly miniscule amount of a relatively weak GHG can have any effect at all. This is fully backed up by 10 long years of ever increasing emissions yet global temps flatlining or even reversing,depending on who you believe/trust. A tiny increase or decrease of solar activity (or that in effect due to cycles/perturbations ) is not a feedback,it's a direct influence.

I'm not sure about others,but I'm getting bored with the science of it all,now. I know I'll never see your POV and vice versa. I'm more interested in the politics of AGW (or not,as the case may be!) and where it goes from here. One thing we can surely agree on Dev,the next ten years are going to be very interesting,whichever side of the fence one resides!

Regards,LG.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

As the man from the Hadley Centre said to me when I put a similar question to him (devils advocatingly) 'We need to measure climate change over thirty years or so'. In other words ten years just too short a time period, there is no reason why it might not be 'noise' (La Nina for example, we both know it will be interesting to see what happens when it fizzles out). It's clear from looking at global temperature series than the inherent yearly variation, noise, around the trend is several tenths of a degree, yet decadal AGW is around that amount...

My extra point Dev is that individual La NINA will fizzle but in Feb 2007 we entered a 36 year perturbation cycle whereby La Nina will be far more prevalent than El Nino. El Nino 'suddenly' died in Feb 07....but it wasn't sudden to the Solar Cycle watchers...it died bang on cue. Ten years maybe too short a time...but it has now become 10 years and early indications are that it will become 11years. I agree and accept that CO2 is in the mix...but it isn't IMO the driver some believe it to be.

BFTP

Edited March 24, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

My extra point Dev is that individual La NINA will fizzle but in Feb 2007 we entered a 36 year perturbation cycle whereby La Nina will be far more prevalent than El Nino. El Nino 'suddenly' died in Feb 07....but it wasn't sudden to the Solar Cycle watchers...it died bang on cue. Ten years maybe too short a time...but it has now become 10 years and early indications are that it will become 11years. I agree and accept that CO2 is in the mix...but it isn't IMO the driver some believe it to be.

BFTP

Look at GW new thread re black soot...as if by magic. CO2 maybe not doing its job so new avenues being looked at????

BFTP

[noggin]

Lots to pick over here.....

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_..._NY_Mar2_08.pdf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi everybody.

I was doing the rounds of the web this morning and found that there are three new sunspots at the moment (thanks to www.spaceweather.com ). I didn't think it worth starting yet another thread (and for the life of me I couldn't find the thread in which Grey-Wolf and I were discussing sunspots a while ago) so I've plonked it in here.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...-cycle-23-spot/

I see that these Cycle 23 sunspots have been mentioned in the Space, Science and Nature forum, but it's worth reading the comments under the article linked to above. In particular there is mention of a sunspot back in March 2006 that was presumed (at the time) to be the first sunspot of cycle 24. Obviously we had the first cycle 24 sunspot back in January, but we have had none since.

So, if the sunspot back in 2006 was the first cycle 24 spot, then we are having an exceptionally quiet cycle already, with only two recorded sunspots during the first two years (!) of the cycle.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this...?

:lol:

CB

EDIT - bloomin' typos!

Edited March 26, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi everybody.

I was doing the rounds of the web this morning and found that there are three new sunspots at the moment (thanks to www.spaceweather.com ). I didn't think it worth starting yet another thread (and for the life of me I couldn't find the thread in which Grey-Wolf and I were discussing sunspots a while ago) so I've plonked it in here.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...-cycle-23-spot/

I see that these Cycle 23 sunspots have been mentioned in the Space, Science and Nature forum, but it's worth reading the comments under the article linked to above. In particular there is mention of a sunspot back in March 2006 that was presumed (at the time) to be the first sunspot of cycle 24. Obviously we had the first cycle 24 sunspot back in January, but we have had none since.

So, if the sunspot back in 2006 was the first cycle 24 spot, then we are having an exceptionally quiet cycle already, with only two recorded sunspots during the first two years (!) of the cycle.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this...?

CB

EDIT - bloomin' typos!

CB

Back in March 2006 was not a polar reversal sunspot. Jan 07 was believed to be so but that has not materialised. Already the solar cycle is 12 years long which 'indicates' a low/minima cycle kicking in. Cycle 24 has NOT yet started! There is mounting evidence that it will not start officially until 2009 which then puts us into the Dalton Minima category......and what globally is occurring at present....La Nina perturbation cycle, global temps dropping by 0.7c in one year, scientists coming up with 'new' reasons for GW and ice melt...where are we going??? I'm starting to stock up.

BFTP

Edited March 26, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Chris Knight]

CB

Back in March 2006 was not a polar reversal sunspot. Jan 07 was believed to be so but that has not materialised. Already the solar cycle is 12 years long which 'indicates' a low/minima cycle kicking in. Cycle 24 has NOT yet started! There is mounting evidence that it will not start officially until 2009 which then puts us into the Dalton Minima category......and what globally is occurring at present....La Nina perturbation cycle, global temps dropping by 0.7c in one year, scientists coming up with 'new' reasons for GW and ice melt...where are we going??? I'm starting to stock up.

BFTP

Cycle 23 is still going. Until the minimum is passed, and the cycle 24 spots take off, it will be impossible to determine the month in which the minimum occurs. After that month, Cycle 24 will have started. Some time soon, perhaps...

[Gray-Wolf]

For a period of time we will have the remnant spots from 23 [like the currently on the suns equator] with their polarity reversed from the 'new' cycle spots.

Cycle 24 was called by Nasa in January so ,though spotty with old cycle23 spots we are in cycle 24. Last week Nasa updated it's predictions for cycle24 still giving it a larger number at max than anything we have studied before........not a good time to be an 'electrical' society depending on sat.s eh?

[laserguy]

For a period of time we will have the remnant spots from 23 [like the currently on the suns equator] with their polarity reversed from the 'new' cycle spots.

Cycle 24 was called by Nasa in January so ,though spotty with old cycle23 spots we are in cycle 24. Last week Nasa updated it's predictions for cycle24 still giving it a larger number at max than anything we have studied before........not a good time to be an 'electrical' society depending on sat.s eh?

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...-sunspots-gone/

From what I gather from this,GW,it would seem that as long as cycle 23 is ongoing then the more likely cycle 24 is to being a 'dud'. There's been a very recent rash of equatorial sunspots but all definitely belonged to cycle 23 as evidenced by their polarity. Cycle 24 (whether it really has started or not),is very much behind the scenes,very late indeed,and cycle 23 just won't give up. Here's a great site for keeping up to date with things:

http://www.solarcycle24.com/index2.htm

[VillagePlank]

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...-sunspots-gone/

From what I gather from this,GW,it would seem that as long as cycle 23 is ongoing then the more likely cycle 24 is to being a 'dud'. There's been a very recent rash of equatorial sunspots but all definitely belonged to cycle 23 as evidenced by their polarity. Cycle 24 (whether it really has started or not),is very much behind the scenes,very late indeed,and cycle 23 just won't give up. Here's a great site for keeping up to date with things:

http://www.solarcycle24.com/index2.htm

If you look at this from that same website, it looks like the trend is still down, although there is some indication that it's bottoming out, now:

Edited March 27, 2008 by VillagePlank

[stewfox]

LG, lets be honest, where does all this religious imagery, all these attempts to discredit each other using words rather then data, evidence, and science get us? I am prepared to listen to anything, but I DO know enough to be able to see through arm waving. Present the evidence that these 'far from fully understood' natural factors are known by you to be the cause of the warming seen. Then, please refute the really rather well understood physics of ghg's. I'm all eyes.

Even if you remove the waiving of arms from both sides cant both sides come up with 'facts' supported by 'data' ?

[SnowBear]

Just come from looking at the Ice Shelf break up thread, and the fact that it appears to be a year of large ice creation in the Antarctic, and its got me thinking on how things would go if warming does not pick up again, how will the world cope in the winters when fossil fuel stocks are running low. Fuel prices are rising all the time, the strain on supply being stretched more and more. If we had a return to winters of the 70's/80's or even back to 63 types, wonder how the infrastructure and communities would cope? How do you think it would effect local communities with regard to food supplies now the food chain is more centrally supplied instead of locally, imports and exports. How it would effect those who commute an hour or more to their work.

How many of you would be opening up the old fireplaces in your homes or buying a log burner? Making fuel bricks from paper mache etc?

IF , please note the IF. We dont know which way this is going to go now and I am interesting on what people think will happen if IF we get a return to those types of winters. Its a question on how you think it will impact your lives, lifestyle etc.

[Yeti]

All these natural factors and more,which are far from being fully understood,but hey let's blame a gas which naturally comprises an almost imperceptible portion of atmosphere,let alone the minute proportion of which is provided by us. The decline of solar activity is already showing it's hand and making a mockery of CO2 and it's mythical effect. AGW believers are the new 'deniers',now trying desperately,and failing,to make the case stand up.

Excuse me? How many times does this need to be stated? Overall warming caused by greenhouse gases does not mean that every year is going to be warmer than the next. People say, "there hasn't been a warmer year than 1998", but the same people fail to understand how a moving average works. Yes, Global temps have begun to level off in the past few years but the same has happened countless times over the past century!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f...ture_Record.png

In that entire graph, NEVER does average global temperature increase for more than a decade without it levelling off, perhaps falling slightly and then "picking up" again. Consider the slight dip around 1990. What we are seeing at the moment with global temp is even less prominent than that which occurred then. We have seen a slight levelling, for no more than 4/5 years. This happened around 1990, 1980, 1970 and 1960 - in short, around every 11 year solar minimum - and exactly the same is happening now. We reach a solar minimum, the temp levels off for a few years, and then, like every other time this has happened, the temp increases again. Would you have said what you are now saying in 1990? Or 80? Or 70? Because if you did, you would have been wrong every time. Global temp has moved like a series of hockey sticks attached together at 11 year points. We are reaching another hockey stick and you are saying that it's going to stop warming completely. Now where is the evidence for this?

Even if the sun is weaker at the moment - which it is - it only masks the problem. Of course the sun's output has a huge influence on our climate; nobody is denying this. But the fact remains that CO2 emissions also have a huge influence and as long as we emit GHGs, the sun will not be warm or cool the planet like it once could. If the sun has a low output, then once upon a time temps would fall, whereas nowadays GHGs keep it level or roundabouts.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Yeti

[SnowBear]

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagn...+sh/monthly.png

A little more detailed than the one on wiki

[millennia]

Excuse me? How many times does this need to be stated? Overall warming caused by greenhouse gases does not mean that every year is going to be warmer than the next. People say, "there hasn't been a warmer year than 1998", but the same people fail to understand how a moving average works. Yes, Global temps have begun to level off in the past few years but the same has happened countless times over the past century!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f...ture_Record.png

In that entire graph, NEVER does average global temperature increase for more than a decade without it levelling off, perhaps falling slightly and then "picking up" again. Consider the slight dip around 1990. What we are seeing at the moment with global temp is even less prominent than that which occurred then. We have seen a slight levelling, for no more than 4/5 years. This happened around 1990, 1980, 1970 and 1960 - in short, around every 11 year solar minimum - and exactly the same is happening now. We reach a solar minimum, the temp levels off for a few years, and then, like every other time this has happened, the temp increases again. Would you have said what you are now saying in 1990? Or 80? Or 70? Because if you did, you would have been wrong every time. Global temp has moved like a series of hockey sticks attached together at 11 year points. We are reaching another hockey stick and you are saying that it's going to stop warming completely. Now where is the evidence for this?

Even if the sun is weaker at the moment - which it is - it only masks the problem. Of course the sun's output has a huge influence on our climate; nobody is denying this. But the fact remains that CO2 emissions also have a huge influence and as long as we emit GHGs, the sun will not be warm or cool the planet like it once could. If the sun has a low output, then once upon a time temps would fall, whereas nowadays GHGs keep it level or roundabouts.

Satellite data has shown NO warming since 1979 and also there is a complete absence of upper Troposhere warming (the GW hotspot) above the tropics - as predicted by the IPCC report for AGW to be the cause of any upward trend in temperatures. Ground based observations are heavily skewed to major population centres and therefore affected by urban heat island effect. There is plenty of evidence that many thermometers that provided data to the models used by the IPCC are situated in car parks and next to air conditioning exhaust vents and other completely unsuitable places, and that many truly rural sites have shown a significant cooling trend (some have warmed as well, the climate is a complex - in fact chaotic - thing). I can't see how the satellite data can be ignored as it's way more accurate that aggregated min/max records that are dispropotionatley scattered across the planet. The debate continues....

[Devonian]

Satellite data has shown NO warming since 1979

I'm afraid that is wrong.

and also there is a complete absence of upper Troposhere warming (the GW hotspot) above the tropics - as predicted by the IPCC report for AGW to be the cause of any upward trend in temperatures. Ground based observations are heavily skewed to major population centres and therefore affected by urban heat island effect. There is plenty of evidence that many thermometers that provided data to the models used by the IPCC are situated in car parks and next to air conditioning exhaust vents and other completely unsuitable places, and that many truly rural sites have shown a significant cooling trend (some have warmed as well, the climate is a complex - in fact chaotic - thing). I can't see how the satellite data can be ignored as it's way more accurate that aggregated min/max records that are dispropotionatley scattered across the planet. The debate continues....

All the temperature records show a similar trend so that must mean the satellites are effected by UHI?

[millennia]

Just come from looking at the Ice Shelf break up thread, and the fact that it appears to be a year of large ice creation in the Antarctic, and its got me thinking on how things would go if warming does not pick up again, how will the world cope in the winters when fossil fuel stocks are running low. Fuel prices are rising all the time, the strain on supply being stretched more and more. If we had a return to winters of the 70's/80's or even back to 63 types, wonder how the infrastructure and communities would cope? How do you think it would effect local communities with regard to food supplies now the food chain is more centrally supplied instead of locally, imports and exports. How it would effect those who commute an hour or more to their work.

IF , please note the IF. We dont know which way this is going to go now and I am interesting on what people think will happen if IF we get a return to those types of winters. Its a question on how you think it will impact your lives, lifestyle etc.

I think this warrants a thread all of it's own. Humans have only got to where they are because of the interglacial and the ability to specialise on 20 (and principally 6) species of plant instead of the 1500 they lived on for hundreds of thousands of years. A significant cooling would destroy the grain belts as the areas now most specialised for these species would become ever more cold and arid. There wouldn't be enough room left on the planet to move these areas south without wiping out areas that would already be under incredible stress due to the changing climate. I reckon that even with technology the maximum sustainable population of Earth in an Ice Age is about 750m people. I don't see 6bn people just starving to death to achieve that figure - we aren't built that way - it would precipitate unimagined migration until the friction sparked a massive resource war. With all the nukes lying about large scale population reduction would come pretty quickly, and the Nuclear Winter of a large scale exchange might be just the sort of tipping point we need to go into the next (and some say overdue) Ice Age.

Fact is you can scare yourself silly about anything and there's precious little you can do about most of it. I just don't want my time on earth made more tedious by the hair shirt brigade when it won't do one jot of good and might even be completely opposite of what is really needed. Time to say f**k it and open a beer

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Even if the sun is weaker at the moment - which it is - it only masks the problem. Of course the sun's output has a huge influence on our climate; nobody is denying this. But the fact remains that CO2 emissions also have a huge influence and as long as we emit GHGs, the sun will not be warm or cool the planet like it once could. If the sun has a low output, then once upon a time temps would fall, whereas nowadays GHGs keep it level or roundabouts.

Yeti

Is it masking the problem or demonstrating that it is THE DRIVER. Solar cycle/Sunspots have been on the high to very high side during the warming periods of the 20th century. We aren't at a 11 year cycle minima the indications are that we are entering a deep minima with cycle 23 although high quieter than 22 and quieter than the NASA NOAA experts thought with cycle 24 not officially started yet to be much quieter still and much quieter than the pro AGW camps thought. Global temps are starting to reflect this despite the massive yearly increase of CO2...DESPITE. Re warming and cooling like it used to there have been periods in the great geological past where CO2 levels were well inexcess of 1000ppm at least 3 times higher than now and in cases 12 times higher so your statement is very inaccurate and completely wrong.

BFTP

[azores92]

If I may speak for Devonian, I really don't think that's a fair comment. Dev's posts are always well considered and backed with well referenced evidence and material. He is as far from backed into a corner as I can imagine.

The dam is not breaking. The sceptics still largely rely on the likes of e.g. Mr Casey and the NSCC, and we all know where that leads. The balance of evidence and systematic theory lies on the side of AGW, with the other camp still comprising a few unsubstantiated theories in obscure and unrefereed publications. So far, none of these have stood up to any kind of academic rigour.

It doesn't matter what we think: the scientific consensus is still holding.

can i say; i'm neutral towards this argument. the thought of a colder spell strikes me as being a little farfetched, but anyone is entitled to their opinions. the other day on the accuweather website i was reading that this cold spell is a one-off event, due to an unusually strong la nina present. however, in the next few decades, i still believe there will be a bias towards stronger la ninas, and to some extent that the statement this man gave has flaws in it. so i can see some deep fluctuations within the next century; some very cold years, and some very hot ones aswell. hopefully next winter will have a moderately low NAO, so we get some good precipitation which will fall as snow!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Excuse me? How many times does this need to be stated? Overall warming caused by greenhouse gases does not mean that every year is going to be warmer than the next. People say, "there hasn't been a warmer year than 1998", but the same people fail to understand how a moving average works. Yes, Global temps have begun to level off in the past few years but the same has happened countless times over the past century!

I appreciate that some people seem to think that global warming implies that every year is warmer than the last, but most skeptics don't believe that at all. Repeatedly stating it does no good: those who have misunderstood global warming won't listen, and everyone else already knows it. That said, however, global temperatures have levelled off over the last ten years. There is no comparable ten-year period in the last century - that is to say there is no time at which the temperatures have been so close together over ten consecutive years with no appreciable warming trend (in fact the trend for the past ten years is slightly negative).

Global temp has moved like a series of hockey sticks attached together at 11 year points. We are reaching another hockey stick and you are saying that it's going to stop warming completely. Now where is the evidence for this?

Where is the evidence that we are going to "hockey stick" again? We only suspect that we will start warming again, and that suspicion is as a result of the preconceived notion that our understanding of climate is correct. If Solar Cycle 24 is as quiet as is currently thought then we might be in for a bit of a shock - if the argument is, "well of course temperatures are levelling off because we're at solar minimum," then what happens to temperatures if the Solar activity doesn't hot up (if you'll pardon the pun)? The situation now, in solar terms, is quite different from any other period in the last 100 years. We can predict and suppose as much as we like but, in the end, only time will tell for certain.

Even if the sun is weaker at the moment - which it is - it only masks the problem. Of course the sun's output has a huge influence on our climate; nobody is denying this. But the fact remains that CO2 emissions also have a huge influence and as long as we emit GHGs, the sun will not be warm or cool the planet like it once could. If the sun has a low output, then once upon a time temps would fall, whereas nowadays GHGs keep it level or roundabouts.

There is a presumption here that the Sun is masking the problem. What if the Sun is the problem? There is also the presumption that CO2 emissions have a huge influence. It would be fairer to say that we currently believe CO2 emissions to have a huge influence. We currently believe that the Sun is masking the problem. What if our hypotheses are wrong? Now that we are at a solar minimum (a rather unusual one, at that), and if we have as quiet a cycle as we think it may be, then it would seem the perfect opportunity to test our hypotheses.

CB

[azores92]

i have stated it before, and i will state again, this is probably just a blip to the system with a strong la nina, as many people have stated before, if next year has a negative NAO then im sure a milder blip is not too far away.

the question is, will these strong la ninas that we are currently experiencing get stronger in the future. if so, then these cold winters will become more common, and of course, the cold winters will not be so evident in the uk. however, if el ninos gather strength, which is more unlikely, then global temperatures will be higher, and people will start to worry about AGW once more. for us to determine what the temperature around the world is likely to be come 20 years, we need to know the effects of CO2 on the stratospheric system, pressure systems, the NAO and el/la nino/a.