A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk  
From SillyWabbit's workspace   

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / January 6, 2008

THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.

Related articles
* 04/15/2007 Doubting doomsday
* 08/15/2007 Hot tempers on global warming
* 08/19/2007 Warming debate: Scene 1, take 2

But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.

In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.

University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling?

"Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."

Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.

"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.

Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.

Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over."

But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."

Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.

created by SillyWabbit on Aug 19, 2008 at 02:06:25 pm     Comments: 21

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

Global warming sceptics buoyed by record cold

By Catherine Elsworth in Los Angeles
Last Updated: 7:01pm GMT 26/02/2008

Global warming skeptics are pointing to recent record cold temperatures in parts of North America and Asia and the return of Arctic Sea ice to suggest fears about climate change may be overblown.
# The deceit behind global warming
# Climate debate far from over, claim senators
# Climate shift 'poles apart'

According to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th century mean (-0.02�F/-0.01�C) for the first time since 1982.

Although some areas of the Northern Hemisphere experienced record cold, other areas experienced recorded above average temperatures

Temperatures were also colder than average across large swathes of central Asia, the Middle East, the western US, western Alaska and southeastern China.

The NCDC reported that the cold conditions were associated with "the largest January snow cover extent on record for the Eurasian continent and for the Northern Hemisphere".

In some parts of China and central Asia, snow fell for the first time in living memory, the NCDC noted.

"For the contiguous United States, the average temperature was 30.5�F (-0.83�C) for January, which was 0.3�F (0.2�C) below the 20th century mean and the 49th coolest January on record, based on preliminary data".
advertisement

Much of North America was also hit by the heaviest snowfall since the 1960s.

Meanwhile, the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre found the January 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, while below the 1979-2000 mean, was greater than the previous four years.

And the January 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was significantly above the 1979-2000 mean, ranking as the largest sea ice extent in January over the 30-year historical period.

Generally there were cooler-than-average conditions in the southern oceans and in Nio regions, where the average temperature decreased markedly in January.

Canada's National Post reported that there were so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec that the property market has suffered because buyers did not want to go out. And in the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in 1950.

Asked about the Arctic ice cover, Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, told the Post the Arctic winter had been so severe, the ice has not only recovered but was actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than the same time last year.

"OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades," writes Lorne Gunter in the National Post.

"But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."

He also quotes Kenneth Tapping, of Canada's National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun and is convinced the Earth is destined for a long period of severely cold weather if solar activity does not pick up soon.

"The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850," Gunter writes.

"It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too."

Other figures from the NCDC, however, show that during January 2008, Europe, northern Asia and most of Australia experienced above average temperatures. According to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), temperatures were 3-4C (5-7F) above average across large areas of Western and Central Australia and as a whole, the country had its warmest January on record.

Sea surface temperatures were also warmer than average in the Atlantic, Indian, and the northwestern Pacific oceans.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My point is that THE CASE IS NOT CLOSED. Stop drinking the kool-aid being dished out to you by those that want to tax you to death.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 19, 2008 at 02:13:51 pm     #



You do know that these things happen slowly over years don’t you?

Are you expecting it to be 150 degrees all over the world one morning?

posted by Ryan on Aug 19, 2008 at 02:26:34 pm     #



You do understand irony, don't you?

Are you as sick of my postings as I am of the constant "green" talk? It's out of control.

For example: I go to the cinema to enjoy a movie (escapism form of entertainment). What do I get before the show starts? A 10 minute lame-ass presentation on how to be a good little Green citizen by a couple of Hollywood hacks. These same people are living in huge mansions, driving huge SUVs, and flying private planes back and forth across the country to make an appearance. Oh puhleeeeze.

Look, I don't want to pollute the planet anymore than anyone else here. I changed to driving a 4-cylinder car a year ago. I don't litter. I try to recycle. I cut back on cutting our grass. I don't joy-ride in my car and I sure can't afford to jet around the country or the world (to go buy a foreign baby). I just want the extremists to stop trying to manipulate legislature, peoples' minds, and attempting to control my life by making my decisions for me about what kind of lightbulb is use to light my home, or charge me a fee for not using the City of Toledo for my recycling. UGH!

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 19, 2008 at 02:55:48 pm     #



So then it's the "how", not the "what"?
You don't want to use CF bulbs because government might tell you you have to or you don't want to use them because the science doesn't support the environmental value of their use?

Using that same logic you shouldn't have to have purchase car insurance either. (The value of car insurance here of course not being an environmemtal benefit but a societal benefit.)

BTW I don't voluntarily use CF bulbs because I hate the light they give off and cheaper, better LED's are on the horizon.

posted by holland on Aug 19, 2008 at 03:06:44 pm     #



Yes sillywabbit, why are you trying to pollute less? You obviously don't believe that your polluting can have any effect on the environment.

posted by pink_slip on Aug 19, 2008 at 03:17:25 pm     #



Oh pink_slip, your crazy is showing again...

So, you can't endeavor to be a good steward of the planet without buying hypocritical windbag algore's hyperventilating nonsense about anthropogenic climate change?

I see.

Well, I'm off to club a seal and burn some styrofoam.

posted by TeamDub on Aug 19, 2008 at 03:32:42 pm     #



One data point isn't important, it's the trend. The mainstream media is just as guilty of this as the anti-global warming conspiracy theorists, but if you strip away the hype and oversimplifications, the threat is very real.

posted by joshwoodward on Aug 19, 2008 at 03:42:37 pm     #



Ahem, TeamDub (snicker, snicker):

I think it's a legit question. SillyWabbit has made it known that he/she doesn't believe that human actions can have an effect on the environment. That being said, why try to pollute less? It would seem like a meaningless gesture.

You do, however, lead me to a related point with your flip comment on the burning of styrofoam--or more specifically the releasing of CFC's into the atmosphere. Why is it, that some people readily accept the fact that humans releasing CFC's into the atmosphere is bad, and caused the ozone hole to grow and endanger human health? But when we discuss the releasing of another pollutant into the atmosphere, it's impossible to believe it will cause any harm? Ponder that while you are clubbing seals.

posted by pink_slip on Aug 19, 2008 at 03:49:42 pm     #



It's Global Weirding.

The earth could possibly lose it's bearing or axis or just have some whacky weather/climate until jr shuts the sub zero fridge. That gushdern Joker.

posted by charlatan on Aug 19, 2008 at 05:55:41 pm     #



Global Weirding. Fantastic.

posted by TheTalentedMrC on Aug 20, 2008 at 07:57:13 am     #



SillyWabbit has made it known that he/she doesn't believe that human actions can have an effect on the environment

Your words, not mine pink. What I said (or tried to say) is that I don't think global warming is a "climate crisis" and I don't think man changed the temperature of the oceans. I do believe we can make some impact our environment(s) on a local level, but not globally.

I kind of have a problem with the way the phrase "climate crisis" is thrown around these days.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 20, 2008 at 09:17:43 am     #



I do believe we can make some impact our environment(s) on a local level, but not globally.

So...if everyone in the world can impact their environment locally, then doesn't that make it a global issue?

posted by pink_slip on Aug 20, 2008 at 09:31:54 am     #



Are you being coy or just stupid?

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37:24 am     #



I'm trying to speak your languange. Why don't you answer the question?

posted by pink_slip on Aug 20, 2008 at 10:50:44 am     #



You've hit the core of the logic issue pink_slip. It doesn't matter what the subject is. Right wingers have trouble when cold simple logic is applied and their arguments fall apart.

posted by holland on Aug 20, 2008 at 11:49:52 am     #



Because you are cherry picking my words and I don't play that game. Semantics.

Fly away Holland-hole. Pinkslip doesn't need a cheerleader.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 20, 2008 at 11:56:51 am     #



Wait a minute - my wings are around here somewhere.........

posted by holland on Aug 20, 2008 at 12:15:48 pm     #



Cherry picking? I was quoting you directly. Perhaps you can clarify your meaning. You said (and I quote): "I do believe we can make some impact our environment(s) on a local level, but not globally."

Two questions:

1. Do you believe that each region/city/person can impact their environment (even if it is only locally)? Yes or no? I'm guessing your answer would be "yes" due to your statement above.

2. Do you believe these regions/cities/people (whatever) exist in a vacuum? Let's say--a region (in this case--a country, China) pollutes the air. Does this pollution only affect China? Or does their local decision to pollute have non-local effects? Also consider that pollution in the US had an effect on the Canadian environment in the form of acid rain.

posted by pink_slip on Aug 20, 2008 at 01:01:34 pm     #



(I'm at work so it's hard to get time to put down everything I want to express in a timely manner).

To Answer your questions:
1. Yes (see below)
2. Two-parter question
A) No (not in a vacuum)
B) Yes, I believe it affects the surrounding regions. (Thus the term local).

The word "Local" wasn't meant to imply borders. I'm sorry. We use the terms "Local" & "Global" in my job at work (technical). Local means "Not Everyone", and Global means "everyone" on the network is affected by one event in my work.

I do think we all should continue to make efforts to keep the air and water clean.
I do not think that we are going to be able to change or level off a warming trend no matter how much we conserve the use of fossil fuels.

I think the deforestation going on in the Amazon (the lungs of this planet) is a bigger contributor to the issue. The only reason we aren't bombarded constantly by Environmental Activists and the media on stopping this deforestation is because it's not something that can influenced, changed, or stopped by the American public (who's easy to manipulate).

I also think a HUGE factor is the Over-Fishing of our oceans by commercial fishing companies.

Then, there's urban sprawl and concrete.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 20, 2008 at 02:51:28 pm     #



Local means "Not Everyone", and Global means "everyone" on the network is affected by one event in my work

So are you saying that some areas (locally) may be completely devastated (engulfed by the ocean, turned into a desert)---while others may only see a somewhat minor change. Therefore this is not a "global" problem? You don't think this will have an effect on the global economy?

At least we agree that deforestation plays a major role. The IPCC thinks so too, and referenced it in their report. In fact, I just posted an article on it. Of course, there can be no argument that deforestation is a man-made problem. So by mentioning it, you must see that climate change is at least somewhat exacerbated by man.

posted by pink_slip on Aug 20, 2008 at 03:23:59 pm     #



The tactic you use in debating is impressive (and old) but has not gone unnoticed. Kudos to you pinkslip.

So are you saying that some areas (locally) may be completely devastated (engulfed by the ocean, turned into a desert)---while others may only see a somewhat minor change. Therefore this is not a "global" problem? You don't think this will have an effect on the global economy?

No. You know that's not what I'm saying. I don't think any of the doom and gloom predicted will be happening. I think it's a scare tactic.

At least we agree that deforestation plays a major role. The IPCC thinks so too, and referenced it in their report. In fact, I just posted an article on it. Of course, there can be no argument that deforestation is a man-made problem. So by mentioning it, you must see that climate change is at least somewhat exacerbated by man.

Yes. It is possible that climate change is somewhat exacerbated by man. We impact our environments (air, water, soil) with what we put into them. Any town idiot knows that, but to say we caused global warming and that it's going to sink Florida (for example) is over the top.

Our planet's history has had many cyclical climate changes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/10/011018071615.htm

Ancient tree rings give climate clues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1247636.stm

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8350.full

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFDE1531F932A35751C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Lisa J. Graumlich, who examines the ring patterns of foxtail pine trees and western junipers in the Sierra Nevada, has compiled a detailed record of the year-to-year variation in temperature and precipitation over the last thousand years.

She has seen in the North American trees the feathery but unmistakable signatures of the Medieval Warm Period, a era from 1100 to 1375 A.D. when, according to European writers of the time and other sources, the climate was so balmy that wine grapes flourished in Britain and the Vikings farmed the now-frozen expanse of Greenland; and the Little Ice Age, a stretch of abnormally frigid weather lasting roughly from 1450 to 1850. A Crucial Question

"We can now see that these were global climate phenomena, not regional temperature variations," she said. "The question is, how did we get those warmer temperatures during pre-industrial times, and what can we learn from those conditions about what is going on today?"

I find that very interesting. I gotta go for now, but I'm open to debate later. I am also open to any new thoughts or ideas. The only time I get pissed is when I am talked down to by celebrities.

posted by SillyWabbit on Aug 20, 2008 at 05:02:15 pm     #