BBC News Article: 2009 One Of 5 Warmest On Record

[snowking]

Hi Snowking,

You sound like the kind of person that most of us are...trully sceptical...And by 'sceptical' I mean on-the-fence; in that, as long as the evidence (either way) is less than nonequivocal, being on-the-fence is the logical way to be...IMO?

That said, I think that you are little off-beam when you say thet there's a 50% chance of any one year being either the hottest or coldest in 150 years...Indeed (someone put me right should I be talking out my a**e, please ) if that really were the case, our climate would oscillate (between extremes) like a yoyo???

Hi pete,

Yes very much a misunderstanding on my behalf!

Although this may further highlight the need for the explanation of their facts and figures to be improved, though that is also in part due to interpretation and indeed the way the media write the article

But yes I very much agree with the fence-sitting you outline. I think it's naive for anybody to think that we truly live in a democracy, there is a hell of a lot kept from the public domain, as has probably been highlighted by the recent computer hack over at UEA. I think unless we all had access to the whole story, its very difficult to judge one way or another which side of the fence we should sit. Though I have to say, without sounding like a broken record, the research of Stott et al. was rather impressive and groundbreaking, which is what really initially budged me onto the fence from the media-induced theology that there is simply only the possibility that the earth is warming because of us.

[OldGreggsTundraBoy]

But, you know don't you...

I wish humans would just slow down and take a few steps back to the stoneage and be the animals they are. things were better then. We make to many problems and fear of things that don't matter. To much emphasis of getting an eduction, getting a job, making money, crap economy, being successful and showing off, conforming with society, and if you cant then might aswell not be here. Not enough on happiness and making the world better. Things like man made GW and a wish for an end self destruction and of the planet stem from this.

Apologies for if this seems off topic and angry[?], but one day you might see its true.

Im neither a sceptic nor a believer, im very much on the fence

But the two quotes I pulled out of the story at the beginning of the thread are simply ridiculous. There is absolutely no point in stating that there is a 50% chance of next year being the warmest on record because it is not statistically important....there is always going to be a 50% chance that next year is the warmest ever....equally theres a 50% chance of it being the coolest ever. Thats just common sense

If I see concrete proof of the fact that the temperature is going to rise continuously, then i may fall the side of the fence of going with the global warmalists (not even sure thats a word, but it is now!). However there is far too much counteractive research, which typically does not get publicised enough, to the global warming arguement. Off the top of my head the research carried out by Prof. Phillip Stott in 2005 with antarctic ice cores jumps to mind.

I think the other issue is that we focus (largely due to the media bias) on where the globe is warming. Im sure not many people will be aware that new zealand, for example, have just had their coldest period for 70 years in may/june. Last winter there was similarly cold there too.

Like i say i sit neither side of the fence, I just get sick an tired of a bias toward stories purely around the warming side of climate change and misleading press releases

Kris

You say ts common sense 50% it will be warmest ever, 50% coldest ever, doesnt really make sense, because i thought it was fairly obvious there will be a good chance it will be between these polar extremes, dont you think?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Between 2006-2008 oil revenues accounted for 70% of Irans governments income and 80% of its export earnings. So yes. It would.

As for developing new technologies, is it not the case that most new technologies come about when there is the pressure to develop them? Besides, we have one, its nuclear, but the Greens don't like that option either, and the wind turbines haven't exactly led to the closing of coal power stations have they?

The markets would move as soon as there was a commercial reason to do so. While oil is still cheap, there isn't one. If OPEC actually got around to doing what they keep saying, maybe there would be.

I must say, the more time that passes without constructive action being taken on a large scale, the more attractive the nuclear option becomes. I don't think it should be a long-term solution but in the short term it could be a useful way of bridging the gap between now and us having viable renewable alternative sources of energy.

Yes, the markets will move as soon as there is a commercial reason to do so- but the important bit that's been left out there is "in the short term". Developing alternative sources of energy on a wide scale is going to require long term planning. If we rely upon fossil fuels until the free market finds that it cannot maximise its 6-month-running profits that way, we may find ourselves with dwindling fossil fuel supplies and still be decades away from using alternatives to generate anywhere near the similar amount of energy. The result- economies falling to their knees. It's like the way the UK bought itself out of recession over the last two decades and as a result is now faced with quite a deep recession.

And in the meantime, if burning all these fossil fuels is increasing the warming of the planet, if we wait until free market economics dictates a change away from fossil fuels we could be committing ourselves to as much as 4-6C of warming instead of, say, 1 or 2C.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I must say, the more time that passes without constructive action being taken on a large scale, the more attractive the nuclear option becomes. I don't think it should be a long-term solution but in the short term it could be a useful way of bridging the gap between now and us having viable renewable alternative sources of energy.

Yes, the markets will move as soon as there is a commercial reason to do so- but the important bit that's been left out there is "in the short term". Developing alternative sources of energy on a wide scale is going to require long term planning. If we rely upon fossil fuels until the free market finds that it cannot maximise its 6-month-running profits that way, we may find ourselves with dwindling fossil fuel supplies and still be decades away from using alternatives to generate anywhere near the similar amount of energy. The result- economies falling to their knees. It's like the way the UK bought itself out of recession over the last two decades and as a result is now faced with quite a deep recession.

And in the meantime, if burning all these fossil fuels is increasing the warming of the planet, if we wait until free market economics dictates a change away from fossil fuels we could be committing ourselves to as much as 4-6C of warming instead of, say, 1 or 2C.

Catch 22 then, without some sort of financial gain industry won't develop new technologies (although some argue that they began during the fuel crisises in 1973), but if governments intervene and make them it will be inefficient and expensive (to the tax payer no doubt) Which leads us to the problem.

The only way out of a recession is to spend money... or have a war, the bi-product being ... spending money. So its not quite the same.

I for one am glad the nuclear option is starting to be embraced with a new wave of power stations opening, it is also likely to be the way to get to newer technologies.

With regards your last comment, two points. One, this assumes that the predictions are correct and two, assumes that the market doesn't see in the interim there is money to be made in 'being green'. Stranger things have happened.

But all of this is a little off-topic.

[OldGreggsTundraBoy]

I must say, the more time that passes without constructive action being taken on a large scale, the more attractive the nuclear option becomes. I don't think it should be a long-term solution but in the short term it could be a useful way of bridging the gap between now and us having viable renewable alternative sources of energy.

Yes, the markets will move as soon as there is a commercial reason to do so- but the important bit that's been left out there is "in the short term". Developing alternative sources of energy on a wide scale is going to require long term planning. If we rely upon fossil fuels until the free market finds that it cannot maximise its 6-month-running profits that way, we may find ourselves with dwindling fossil fuel supplies and still be decades away from using alternatives to generate anywhere near the similar amount of energy. The result- economies falling to their knees. It's like the way the UK bought itself out of recession over the last two decades and as a result is now faced with quite a deep recession.

And in the meantime, if burning all these fossil fuels is increasing the warming of the planet, if we wait until free market economics dictates a change away from fossil fuels we could be committing ourselves to as much as 4-6C of warming instead of, say, 1 or 2C.

Nuclear seems like quite a good option really, particularly as about 20% of energy is nuclear and it hasn't really caused any problems, its clean [well sort of..] and efficient. Its better than coal but these days we just use a bit of everything beause there is no coordination in deciding to find a single solution.

[Methuselah]

I don't, for a minute, doubt that our GHG emissions act as a climate-warming forcer; IMO, the science behind that is 'beyond any reasonable doubt' (see TWS's posts)...But, I'm not yet convinced of its extent...

Anyhoo...I'm sure that 'Two Jags' will cool us all down!

Nuclear seems like quite a good option really, particularly as about 20% of energy is nuclear and it hasn't really caused any problems, its clean [well sort of..] and efficient. Its better than coal but these days we just use a bit of everything beause there is no coordination in deciding to find a single solution.

Fair point OGTB. But, nuclear energy can never be a long-term solution; it'll run out, too.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I don't, for a minute, doubt that our GHG emissions act as a climate-warming forcer; IMO, the science behind that is 'beyond any reasonable doubt' (see TWS's posts)...But, I'm not yet convinced of its extent...

Anyhoo...I'm sure that 'Two Jags' will cool us all down!

Fair point OGTB. But, nuclear energy can never be a long-term solution; it'll run out, too.

Interesting point, the very conservative estimates reckon on their being about 100 years worth of Uranium in the earth. Whose been looking? Not much has been spent on exploration yet, and some reckon on there being 40 trillion tonnes in the earth crust alone, let alone what can be gained from sea water.

Also, with the new breeder reactors coming online, and getting 100times more energy kilo for kilo as the light water reactors things are looking up, so 50 years of uranium would last 5000 years. Thorium can also be used, and there is estimated to be 4 times the amount of Thorium compared to Uranium so... I reckon we are good to go for a little while.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[Interitus]

Take one point you can take ten easily

-----------------------------------------------

Arctic summer sea-ice cover declined suddenly in 2007 and 2008, prompting the realisation that this environment may be far more vulnerable to change than previously thought

---------------------------------------------

How about the truth

Artic ice summer sea ice cover declined to a record low in 2007 but showed signs of recovery in 2008 and further recovery in 2009

..before plunging to a new low point for early November.

[Methuselah]

Interesting point, the very conservative estimates reckon on their being about 100 years worth of Uranium in the earth. Whose been looking? Not much has been spent on exploration yet, and some reckon on there being 40 trillion tonnes in the earth crust alone, let alone what can be gained from sea water.

Also, with the new breeder reactors coming online, and getting 100times more energy kilo for kilo as the light water reactors things are looking up, so 50 years of uranium would last 5000 years. Thorium can also be used, and there is estimated to be 4 times the amount of Thorium compared to Uranium so... I reckon we are good to go for a little while.

But, DM...If we combine nuclear with renewables (Iran has a lot of sunshine) we'll be able to extend the usefulness of radioisotopes???

PS: guys, we have threads dedicated to polar ice???

[Dartmoor_Matt]

But, DM...If we combine nuclear with renewables (Iran has a lot of sunshine) we'll be able to extend the usefulness of radioisotopes???

PS: guys, we have threads dedicated to polar ice???

I agree, next to nuclear the next best option is solar, but the sun shines in lots of politically unstable regions and might not be the most secure method, whereas nuclear could power the whole of humanity for tens of thousands of years. Potentially

Electric cars here we come!

[Methuselah]

I agree, next to nuclear the next best option is solar, but the sun shines in lots of politically unstable regions and might not be the most secure method, whereas nuclear could power the whole of humanity for tens of thousands of years. Potentially

Electric cars here we come!

But...If they're really that 'politically unstable', wouldn't it be better for them to be Solar rather than Nuclear???

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I meant if we had to rely on them for our solar energy, but yes, the other way around it would be probably better if they weren't nuclear (although a bit late on Iran)

[Mr Maunder]

..before plunging to a new low point for early November.

Until the Arctic ice recovered again by 24 November to be above 2008, 2007....and now 2003! (according to IJIS).

Not that this proves anything, it could all be different again in two weeks (but it is cold up there at the moment).

MM

[cheeky_monkey]

Nope, February 0.1c below and July 0.4c below. August was only 0.4c above and September 0.5c above. December 2008 was 1.6c below normal and December 2001 1.5c below. October 2003 1.2c below, July 2007 1.3c below and March 2006 1.4c below. They are all well below normal.

hardly seriously below normal???..so feb and july scraped in 0.1 & 0.4c below...what about April 1.9c above and November probably coming in more than 2c above...and that beats all the below average months you quoted for the last 10years..thats before i mention July 2006 3.2c above..Sept 2006 3.1c above..Jan 2007 2.8c above etc etc. the number of above average months hugely outways the number below..also the extent to which many have been above is far in excess in scale to those that have been below.

[PersianPaladin]

Whether it would bring the economies of Russia and Iran to their knees depends on whether their economies are solely reliant upon fossil fuels. But I suggest that if we continue maintaining the status quo, many economies will fall to their knees when fossil fuel reserves run scarce and in the meantime we haven't developed alternatives that meet even one-tenth of the energy demands that fossil fuels fulfil.

It is no good "letting the markets decide" here for instance, because the markets will only move en-masse towards reducing reliance on fossil fuels when it becomes uneconomical to do so in the short term. The problem here being "short term".

Iran is investing in nuclear fuels so as to avoid the needless burning of natural gas and coal.

I do wish they'd use less dangerous tech though.

[OldGreggsTundraBoy]

hardly seriously below normal???..so feb and july scraped in 0.1 & 0.4c below...what about April 1.9c above and November probably coming in more than 2c above...and that beats all the below average months you quoted for the last 10years..thats before i mention July 2006 3.2c above..Sept 2006 3.1c above..Jan 2007 2.8c above etc etc. the number of above average months hugely outways the number below..also the extent to which many have been above is far in excess in scale to those that have been below.

where you getting this data from? Met? NW clearly shows 10 months in a row well abv average temperature.

i do totally agree with your point there, there have been more above averages over the last few years than below.

Edited November 25, 2009 by OldGreggsTundraBoy

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe we should just trust in God?......S/He's doing a fine job in restricting the spread of the H1N1 virus at the hajj with the 'ever popular' massive flooding/downpour/years rain in a week trick eh?

S/he gave us the planet, and the subservience of all of it, so S/He won't let us fug it up now will S/He?

[laserguy]

I wish humans would just slow down and take a few steps back to the stoneage and be the animals they are. things were better then. We make to many problems and fear of things that don't matter. To much emphasis of getting an eduction, getting a job, making money, crap economy, being successful and showing off, conforming with society, and if you cant then might aswell not be here. Not enough on happiness and making the world better. Things like man made GW and a wish for an end self destruction and of the planet stem from this.

Apologies for if this seems off topic and angry[?], but one day you might see its true.

By Jingo you're right! I sometimes fantasise about chucking it 'all' (all what?) in and living a simple existance in the middle of nowhere and living off the fat of the land (or summat like that!). I guess many of us do from time to time. If I was confident that I had the nous and ability to survive I'd probably take the leap (and if I did,I'd pray very hard for global warming to come on in leaps and bounds)! As a confirmed denier I'm fed up of (but have grown accustomed to) warmists assuming that I'm a rampant consumer who has money aplenty and I'm unwilling to sacrifice stuff. That's almost as far from reality as you can get. How many of you warmers have a car that's less than twelve years old? How many foreign holidays do you take every year (if it's just the one,it's one more than I can afford to)? How many of you refuse to buy anything that you could make yourself,and take the hard way to get it? I could go on,but I've been down this road before on here so won't repeat myself. The point is,I suppose,to highlight the hypocritical,holier-than-thou attide of those who go along with the sham and somehow think that I,as a denier,am responsible for their imagined global warming apocalypse to come. Nah,I just 'deny' it because it's wrong,nothing more sinister than that.

Ever noticed how it's only the developed countries who claim to be concerned about AGW,y'know,those who are involved in/are dependant on the trading of fossil fuels and largely live the phoney existance described by OGTB? Get a clue,everyone... And to keep this on-topic,as far as the warmest year in blah blah whatever years,it's beyond me how anyone can take official proclamations like this seriously (and even if true it means nothing in the scheme of things and is certainly not brought about by even the most wasteful,consumerist elements of society,however much I dislike them)) after recent revelations of cover-ups,fudged data etc etc. You're better off just looking out the window and taking note of weather events around the world which can be truly verified. Right,I'm off to knock-up a quick wicker hammock!

[Stu_London]

As someone who is one of the few on here who is truly open minded on this subject, I would comment as follows: -

1) If we are in the middle of a runaway AGW event, we would expect 2009 to be in one of the warmest years in our recent (150year) history.

2 ) If we are experiencing some sort of natural climate variation, then clearly the natural variation has trended to warm in our recent history and it would be suprising therefore if a year which saw an outgoing La Nina and an incoming El Nino not to be one of the warmer years in a dataset as limited as the one we have.

What is a little tedious is when facts are denied. I am ever so slightly skeptical of the political influences of the climate change lobby, however not sufficiently to believe that figures would be distorted to the extent that they would say it was a warm year when it was not.

What i would say is that both camps need some evidence soon to support their viewpoint. AGW supporters will need 1 or 2 more global records to be set in the next decade, otherwise the argument that we are continuing to warm starts to fall a little flat. Equally, those who argue we are due to cool will need some evidence of this. A strong nino year that doesn't get anywhere the near the record would be a start.

I am reminded in some ways of the current economic argument of the day between deflationists and inflationists. At the moment it is a phoney war with nothing conclusive for either side to hang their hat on.

[The PIT]

But, aren't we talking global temperatures for 2009?

Yup but climate is within normal bounds of historical climate.

[stewfox]

What i would say is that both camps need some evidence soon to support their viewpoint. AGW supporters will need 1 or 2 more global records to be set in the next decade, otherwise the argument that we are continuing to warm starts to fall a little flat. Equally, those who argue we are due to cool will need some evidence of this. A strong nino year that doesn't get anywhere the near the record would be a start.

I'm not aware many are putting forward a current argument that the Earth is due to cool down?

The main argument seems to me is that AGW premise isn't happening.

If the background factors are masking what according to them should be happening that then yes another 10-20 yrs should be enough to have those back ground factors iron out.

If 2010, 2012,2015,2018, 2020,2023 were all record warm years then 'something could be happening'

However I don't know why sceptics should prove something else ??.

If you said to me Man Utd just won 10 games in a row and I said no they didn't , shouldn't you prove to me they did especially if based on that you said you would want me to pay more taxes ?.

[VillagePlank]

Yup but climate is within normal bounds of historical climate.

But to know that you would have to trust the computer programs that reconstructed such a history, and that are, perhaps, reused for extrapolating temperatures into the future wouldn't you?

Edited November 26, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Stu_London]

I'm not aware many are putting forward a current argument that the Earth is due to cool down?

The main argument seems to me is that AGW premise isn't happening.

If the background factors are masking what according to them should be happening that then yes another 10-20 yrs should be enough to have those back ground factors iron out.

If 2010, 2012,2015,2018, 2020,2023 were all record warm years then 'something could be happening'

However I don't know why sceptics should prove something else ??.

If you said to me Man Utd just won 10 games in a row and I said no they didn't , shouldn't you prove to me they did especially if based on that you said you would want me to pay more taxes ?.

I would agree that the AGW camp probably need statistics to go there way in the next few years.

My understanding is (although I am not 100% sure because i heard it via the media) that Hadley admit that their model has failed if a 15 year period elapses without a record year being recorded - they have 3 years left to save their climate model from the bin.

I also agree strongly regarding the taxation issue

What I don't agree with is when reports come in saying we have a top 5 year, people come out and say "no we haven't" - not withstanding that there is 10% of the year to go yet.

[The PIT]

But to know that you would have to trust the computer programs that reconstructed such a history, and that are, perhaps, reused for extrapolating temperatures into the future wouldn't you?

Well thats one one of the climate scientist reckoned about the present climate and who am I to argue.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The current climate is within the bounds of natural variability- any reconstruction of past climates will show this.

However, that actually says very little about whether or not humans have been affecting the climate. If, for example, the world's climate has been 10C warmer than at present in the past, then if natural forcings provide a net negative impact of 1C over the 21st century then we would need 11C worth of AGW to bring the climate outside of its natural variability range. The implications of that would be massive- and only the most extreme of model outliers project AGW having anywhere near that degree of effect!

Re. Stewfox, actually there are quite a lot of people who are arguing that the Earth is about to cool down. Regarding the lack of warming in the last decade I'm afraid there is little evidence to suggest that the AGW premise isn't happening at all, but there is certainly some evidence to suggest that there was more than just AGW behind the rapid warming of the 1980s and 1990s, which may imply that the impacts of AGW may, so far, have not been as bad as has been feared.

As all of this is very uncertain I've been careful to use terms like "little evidence", "some evidence" and "may" here.