I am waiting for the official reports that will come out in January 2008 telling us how much hotter or colder this year has been relative to the long term average, but in the meantime the following opinion piece by David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma, is full of the anecdotal suggesting 2007 was ‘the year of global cooling’:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140
He concludes with the comment that, “If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you’re hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.”
I am keen to post something entitled ‘Lots of Examples of Warm Weather in 2007’ – post your examples as a comment below or write a short piece for publication as a new thread at this blog. You can email me at jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.”
December of two years ago, a group of perhaps 20 of the activists descended upon the capital at Ottawa, demanding of the Canadian federal government to reduce ghg emissions by art least 50% (and some other lunatic demands like don’t remove any more petroleum from the wells). The temperature was about -15 deg.C that afternoon. A reporter attempted to point out the apparent incongruity of the picture; a spokesperson for the group derided the reporter for his lack of knowledge or understanding of the above fundamental principle.
Nothing warm from the UK in 2007 despite the Met Office prediction of 2007 being the ‘warmest ever,’ I’m afraid – severe flooding in the early part of the summer though. The past 2 weeks have seen mostly sub-zero temperatures at night.
Ahhh, global ‘average’ temperature increases.
Specific conditions are still all over the place, hot, cold, wet, dry, and just right.
But on an average basis, things are overall warmer.
It’s a pretty basic fact to understand.
An average is precisely a mix of all the hottest and coldest.
If a warm summer dries the country, then the very low humidity causes lower temperatures in winter, as higher humidity will actually maintain higher air temperatures.
This would cause a bigger variation in daily temps as well.
There are very many local conditions that can impact the climate in any specific place.
The recent winter in Australia with the continuing drought had some classic examples of this phenomena, this is what deserts are like, this is a process of desertification.
It is almost a certainty that a change in climate will not uniformly impact in a system where so many local factors play into actual weather.
However, on average, over time, as whole climatic systems change and adapt, particular outcomes look more likely than other in different places.
Here’s a warm example, but not that exciting,
“It was the warmest Spring on record for several locations [in South Australia], chiefly in the Western Agricultural Districts. These were for Ceduna, Streaky Bay, Nullarbor, Whyalla Aero and also Maitland on Yorke Peninsula, Loxton in the Riverland, and Adelaide Airport.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/sa/summary.shtml
I don’t care if it’s warmer or cooler – whatever – it’s not my fault!
From the UK Tyndall Centre:
Working Paper No. 58 – The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change – Dennis Bray & Simon Shackley, Sept. 2004)
Only the perception of positive anomalies will be registered as an indication of change, if the issue is framed as global warming.
Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as an indication of change, if the issue is framed as ‘climate change’.
We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/ global warming.
As the ‘Luke’ blog identity has previously stated, the controlling factors driving the global climate are anthropogenic greenhouse gases, mainly CO₂ (90% scientific FACT, agreed by consensus), so it follows that whatever happens, drought, flood, heat wave, blizzard – you name it – it’s all a lot worse than would otherwise be the case without fossil fueled energy (BTW nuclear & hydro are anathemas too).
Paul Biggs any cance of the link to that working paper 58 please.
TIA
Paul Biggs -please ignore my previous plea I spoke to soon. It was an easy find.
Here’s a link to the UK Met office prediction: “2007 to be ‘warmest on record’ Last year was the warmest on record in the UK, Met Office figures show The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, the UK’s Met Office says. An extended warming period, resulting from an El Nino weather event in the Pacific Ocean, will probably push up global temperatures, experts forecast. They say there is a 60% chance that the average surface temperature will match or exceed the current record from 1998… The global surface temperature is projected to be 0.54C (0.97F) above the long-term average of 14C (57F), beating the current record of 0.52C (0.94F), which was set in 1998. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6228765.stm
And looking for ‘warmest’ news: WASHINGTON — This winter [Dec 2006- Feb 2007] was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259065,00.html
… but given it wasn’t winter “worldwide” what do they mean?
John McLean found this:
The paper which recommends using the term “climate change” is available at http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/wp58.pdf
Another working paper may be of interest “Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narratives and public perception of climate change”. It focused on the reaction to the movie “Day after tomorrow”. See http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/wp72.pdf
It includes gems like this..
..
The uncertainty and complexity surrounding climate change, its impacts and implications have long hampered efforts to raise its profile on the national and international agenda (Wynne, 1994; Shackley and Deanwood, 2001). Mixed messages, academic controversy and political posturing (Seacrest et al., 2000) have frustrated a public who have a key role to play in finding a solution to the problem which has been presented. Frequently this complex situation is compounded by normative opinions of opposing cultural and ethical agendas, acting to further polarise the debate.
Science and the media tend to inhabit a grey or undefined region within the socio-political psyche, a void in which the metrics of scientific process are often lost in translation from academic findings to news headline. This is particularly true for climate change which, as reported by Boykoff and Boykoff (2004), is skewed in the perceptions of the U.S. public. The authors argue that people have been misled by newspaper reports that tend to give equal weight to both sides of the climate change debate. The journalistic practice of balancing the scientific consensus with a comparatively small number of contrarians has acted to overstate the actual degree of disagreement (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004; Moser and Dilling, 2004).
This finding has implications for climate policy and provision of public information. If stark images and words are to be used to inform the public and communicate risks associated with climate change (e.g. ‘The Carbon Trust’ public information campaign, 2005), it is important to capitalise upon public reactions. As our study has shown, the effects upon the public psyche may be brief and quickly overtaken by more pressing day to day issues. We know that some forms of communication eclipse others in their ability to produce vicarious experiences (Bostrom, 2003). Thus, a more focused message in response to major news items and attention grabbing headlines is necessary. By understanding the characteristics of risk information, knowing what is important within that information and conveying these messages through the media of choice, a more efficient and effective use can be made of communication tools, either planned or opportune. Of equal importance, however, are systems to implement change following a successful communication strategy.
Large areas of the NH are enduring early and severe winter conditions, even before the official start of winter.
Meanwhile in the SH, ice cover remains well above normal, where there are now two million sq. kilometers more ice, then in Dec. 2006.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/southern_hemisphere_ice_cover_remains_well_above_normal
“The forecast for wild, wet, windy and cold weather over the Chistmas and New Year period [2007-08] has sparked concern for the welfare of freshly shorn sheep in Victoria [Australia]…
It is important to provide adequate feed during this period, as cold weather markedly increases the energy requirements of stock.”
http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=47654
I’m glad no-one is taking this exercise too seriously. I mean, if we wanted to really play semantics we could point out that a more accurate descritpion for AGW is climate change. So here goes…
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-01-04-warm-weather_x.htm
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_6586.aspx
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/254287.html
http://knoxnews.com/news/2007/dec/10/unseasonably-warm-weather-breaks-records/
a personal favourite
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20070920_timeseries.png
My understanding is that if we hadn’t had a La nina form, 2007 would have coasted in as the hottest on record. So keep an eye out for the next el nino…
jennifer – “He concludes with the comment that, “If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you’re hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.””
So does that mean that if there is a heatwave global warming is proven correct?
What would appear to be a contradiction in what the Greenpeace person said is not. With more heat trapped in the global weather system there is more energy available for weather systems which are powered by heat. Snowstorms are still powered by the sun believe it or not.
“Notable ice storms include an El Niño-related North American ice storm of 1998 that affected much of eastern Canada, including Montreal and Ottawa, as well as upstate New York and part of New England. Three million people lost power, some for as long as six weeks. One-third of the trees in Montreal’s Mount Royal park were damaged, as well as a large proportion of the sugar-producing maple trees. The amount of economic damage caused by the storm has been estimated at $3 billion Canadian.”
The idea is that with more energy available, storms of whatever type will become more violent when they do form. Additionally as humans are settling more and more in areas where storms are frequent, such as the GOM, the storms will cause more economic damage as more people are in harms way.
“Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer.”
It is not cognitive dissonance it is the realisation that all storms are ultimately heat engines and with more heat available in the system storms are predicted to increase in intensity.
Temperature declines by 0.7 degrees with each extra year in length of the preceding solar cycle. With probably at least a year to go before the month of solar minimum, we are up for a two degree decline in the second decade. For the mid-latitudes, this will move climate bands 300 km closer to the equator. For Australia this won’t be so bad, but this is a bad time to become a Canadian wheat farmer.
The cold weather didn’t stop U.S. Democrats from legislating that the U.S. follow the same stupid dim light bulb plan that Australia and the EU adopted. There is a phase out of incandescent bulbs in the next four to twelve years. Maybe we’ll scratch this proposal after we watch Australians lighting candles when the new bulbs don’t provide enough light to read.
Woody – “Maybe we’ll scratch this proposal after we watch Australians lighting candles when the new bulbs don’t provide enough light to read.”
I read fine in my house that has all compact flouros – whats your problem?
David – “With probably at least a year to go before the month of solar minimum, we are up for a two degree decline in the second decade.”
So the clouds are increasing? How is the cloud study going BTW. Also are the more clouds from more cosmic rays more reflective or more heat trapping – how are you going to answer that question?
Re Bulbs – do not forget about all that mercury either:-)
Ender,
You should read this!
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x
Ender, clouds are both, it just depends on their height in the atmosphere. Thats why most GCMs have a hard time modelling their effects.
There are a couple of other incongruities following the “2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally” Met office prediction.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html
From the above: “… the potential for a record 2007 arises partly from A MODERATE-STRENGTH EL NIÑO already established in the Pacific…”
The preliminary summary of the year released a week or so ago, placing 2007 as the seventh warmest on record since 1850 (with a potentially largish December drop still to come knocking it down even further):
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20071213.html
It has some interesting bits in it, explaining why the year was not nearly the warmest one on record:
“Professor Phil Jones, Director of UEA’s Climatic Research Unit, said, “The year began WITH A WEAK EL NIÑO…”
Notice that the El Nino is no longer a moderate strength one, but is now a weak one.
“However, SINCE THE END OF APRIL THE LA NIÑA event has taken some of the heat out of what could have been an even warmer year.”
If you look at the tri-monthlies which are used to define ENSO events, we have not yet officially entered into a La Nina phase – maybe next month:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
So it is stretching the truth a bit to suggest that the cooling can be attributed to a La Nina from April when ENSO was in a neutral phase to at least June/July.
There is also a lag between the El Nino and the warming of global temperatures – it takes about four months or perhaps a bit longer. Given we were still in an El Nino at least to the end of January, the El Nino effect should have influenced global temps to May or even June… (viz the Jan Met office release “The lag between El Niño and the full global surface temperature response means that the warming effect of El Niño is extended and therefore has a greater influence the global temperatures during the year.”)
It was not the La Nina that caused the cooling…
cheers
Arnost
Off course by GISS Temp, 2007 will only narrowly miss out on being the wamest year ever:
“Through the first 11 months, 2007 is the second warmest year in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005…”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20071210_GISTEMP.pdf
Dr Hansen has spoken – but also interestingly suggests that, barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years. A testable prediction – and it will be interesting to see how GISS compares to MSU if this turns out to be right (like he was more or less right with his 2007 likley to be hottest ever).
cheers
Arnost
mark – “Ender,
You should read this!”
Mark – you should read this:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/flux.html
Please note the steadily decreasing LW radiation from the top of the atmosphere. Nowhere in the radiation profiles of the atmosphere is a correlation to cosmic ray flux.
Ender, I installed a number of the compact flourescent bulbs in our house. After two days, my wife took every one of them out and put the other bulbs back. She hated the bad light. Don’t even suggest LED’s.
This reminds me of the time that Congress decided to reduce the flush capacity of all commodes to save water. So, what did everyone do? Double flushes.
Likewise, I’ll need twice as many lights and many of my light fixtures can’t use CFBs, and most of my house is set up with dimmers.
Congress is going to have to deal with my wife.
“Mark – you should read this:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/flux.html
Please note the steadily decreasing LW radiation from the top of the atmosphere. Nowhere in the radiation profiles of the atmosphere is a correlation to cosmic ray flux.”
So what’s your point? Cosmic rays are high energy particles, not long wave radiation.
Here’s a view of what high-energy cosmic rays have done over time based on data from Ahluwalia.
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/CosmicRays.html?1197572024545
Woody – “Ender, I installed a number of the compact flourescent bulbs in our house. After two days, my wife took every one of them out and put the other bulbs back. She hated the bad light. Don’t even suggest LED’s.”
Did you install the warm white ones that are now on the market or where all of these the older harsh ones? Also you can install 11w or 15w which have the same light out as a 60W and 75W globe. I have light fittings with 2 11w globes in them.
My wife initially was resistant to CFLs however I persisted and now we are used to them. There are only 2 light fitting in the house with incandescent lights and that is for asthetic reasons. These are turned on perhaps twice a year as we use standard lamps with hidden CFLs instead for lighting that is on for long periods.
I’m using CFLs almost exclusively now, mostly warm white (3000K). Had a couple of bad experiences with some globes as I understand the quality is variable. I had a couple of them that took fully a minute to warm up and produce adequate light.
I’ve recently replaced dimmer switches so that I can use CFLs in the fittings. (You can get dimmable CFLs but they’re quite expensive).
I’ve also got PAR38 CFL replacements for outside use. 20W vs 125W! And they work very well.
Mark – “So what’s your point? Cosmic rays are high energy particles, not long wave radiation.”
According to the theory of cosmic rays they modulate the low level cloud cover that then imposes a signal on the shortwave radiation leaving the Earth. There is no correlation in any of the graphs to show that more SW is being reflected in time with the changes in cosmic ray flux.
What is evidenced in the graphs is that steadily more LW radiation being absorbed. There is no evidence in the graphs, for the time period that cosmic rays ‘show’ a correlation with low level cloud cover, that this is accompanied by a change in either the SW radiation leaving the Earth or the LW radiation being absorbed.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Arnost: I see you have us all looking for that two degree fall in ST again 🙂
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 58 made a fascinating read – the bits of it I could understand, that is (thanks Paul Biggs).
It was 41 pages of psychosocial-babble pointing out the bleedin’ obvious.
The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations (please note: “suggested”).
The Paper adds this proviso: “We do not address any issue of attribution, for example, belief that climate change is a result of human action or belief that climate change is a result of natural processes. We limit our discussion simply to the development of the public belief as to whether or not climate change is occurring. Belief is the preliminary step for discussion. At times when beliefs converge the issue of, and debate concerning, attribution can be given more consideration.”
For those old enough to remember Rowan & Martin – “very interesting”.
Those who are troubled by the apparent retreat from reason on this question should (IMHO) always insist on using terms like human caused, human induced, anthropogenic etc. in order to nail debate down to the specific issue and not allow the debate to be side-tracked on to irrelevances.
“As the ‘Luke’ blog identity has previously stated, the controlling factors driving the global climate are anthropogenic greenhouse gases, mainly CO₂ (90% scientific FACT, agreed by consensus), so it follows that whatever happens, drought, flood, heat wave, blizzard – you name it – it’s all a lot worse than would otherwise be the case without fossil fueled energy (BTW nuclear & hydro are anathemas too).”
He never said that, but it’s a popular pasttime here to say that he did, apparently.
There are predictions of a white christmas in the victorian alps. Wouldn’t expect any magic return to a record warm year just yet.
Ian: Are you getting any rain in your neck of the woods?
In Victoria it has been raining steadily for two days. The best start for farmers in 25 years.
It is a land of droughts and flooding rains.
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was…
It is amazing how well adapted Australian trees are to droughts,rain and fire. Dropping leaves in dry times and sprouting quickly when it rains.A dry spell of 10 years means nothing.They have had thousands of years of dry spells.
It’s all about adaption.
Chrisl, we’re having a really good season. No heat waves but really troppo with high humidity and regular storms as per the summer of 1973/74.
I’m just waiting for the big flood to fill all the dams and then I will buy a new water tank. In the mean time, it is great to see the government squirm.
No dreaming required for a white Christmas
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/287896
Thanks Mark, “In Resolute, Nunavut, which is as close as he could get to the North Pole, Phillips predicted temperatures for Christmas look at -34 C, but with clear skies”.
Thats -34C just 4 days into winter. Wonder what the Polar Bears think of Global Luke-Warming?
“What is evidenced in the graphs is that steadily more LW radiation being absorbed. There is no evidence in the graphs, for the time period that cosmic rays ‘show’ a correlation with low level cloud cover, that this is accompanied by a change in either the SW radiation leaving the Earth or the LW radiation being absorbed.”
Ooooohhhhh! Graphs based on a model and a NASA GIS one at that! As if that’s proof of anything!!!
Mark – “Ooooohhhhh! Graphs based on a model and a NASA GIS one at that! As if that’s proof of anything!!!”
So you have your convenient theory that man has nothing to do with temperature rise, it is all cosmic rays and nothing will convince you otherwise.
And they say that AGW proponents are blind.
Man may have a partial contribution to temperature rise, Ender, but for the last 25 years there has been no temperature rise at all.
So it seems that you have this convenient theory that man is entirely responsible for a temperature rise THAT HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE. And it is based on a modelled relationship between CO2 emissions that have taken place and this temperature rise THAT HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE.
Once again, that is a 34ppm increase in atmospheric CO2, or 180Gt since 1982 and NO SIGN OF WARMING. We are still in a cooler year than the mean of the past 25 years.
Where did that come from Mott. Not content with the no warming since 1998, now it’s now warming for 25 years. Sounds like a work of fiction to me.
My sister-in-law played a bad joke on me this Christmas and bought me George MonIdiot’s book Heat. Needless to say, I failed (at least initially) to see the humour in this.
After a hearty turkey repast, I then decided to read a few pages of this swill but had to desist as I did not want to regift my dinner. Noticing that the yule log was past its prime and in need of a boost, only then did Monidiot’s book live up to its name as it transformed itself in a blazing glory into a series of combustion byproducts, one of which I might add was CO2!!
2007 will most likely finish as the second warmest ever since reliable use of thermometers. Only 1998 was warmer. The trend by any measure of honest math, remains steadily upward although the rate of warming has slowed in the past decade from the one before. 2008 is likely to be cooler than 2007
“2007 will most likely finish as the second warmest ever since reliable use of thermometers. Only 1998 was warmer. The trend by any measure of honest math, remains steadily upward although the rate of warming has slowed in the past decade from the one before.”
Maybe if you believe the tripe that NASA GIS puts out. However, if you consult HADCRUT3 which is the most commonly referenced source (and tracks MSU results fairly well), you get the following numbers:
1998 0.515
1999 0.262
2000 0.238
2001 0.400
2002 0.455
2003 0.457
2004 0.432
2005 0.479
2006 0.422
2007 0.414
Note that 2007 is the YTD November number which will drop further once December is included. Some second warmest year, some upward trend!
Mark – “only then did Monidiot’s book live up to its name as it transformed itself in a blazing glory into a series of combustion byproducts, one of which I might add was CO2!!”
There is a book you should read if you like science fiction as well – Fahrenheit 451 buy Ray Bradbury – its got a lot of book burning in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451
“There is a book you should read if you like science fiction as well”
Nah! I get my fill of science fiction reading all the climate alarmist nonsense thank you very much!
AMSTERDAM – The average temperature in the Netherlands in 2007 matched 2006, the warmest year in 300 years, and the Dutch meteorological institute said it was a sign of global warming.
The average temperature in 2007 was 11.2 degrees Celsius (52.16F) which, along with 2006, is highest average since Dutch temperatures were first measured in 1706, the KNMI institute said on Friday. The normal annual average is 9.8 degrees.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/46218/story.htm
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080111/96210251.html
Saudi Arabia covered with snow in coldest winter for 20 years
13:25 | 11/ 01/ 2008
ABU DHABI, January 11 (RIA Novosti) – Northern parts of Saudi Arabia are covered with snow with schools, mosques and administrative bodies paralyzed, local media reported Friday.
The oil-rich kingdom is being hit with subzero temperatures and snow storms with freezing winds of up to 50 km/h (30mp/h). Some regions have been experiencing problems with water supplies as pipes have frozen, and livestock has died from the cold.
The Saudi Gazette reported late in December that the winter was expected to last 89 days, with temperatures reaching below zero. National media said the winter is the coldest in the country for 20 years.
Morning and afternoon prayers are being combined in many mosques because of the morning cold and some schools will reopen later than scheduled.
The bad weather is fun for children and teenagers, however, who have been making snowballs and building snowmen with enthusiasm.