[tt] New Statesman: David Whitehouse: Has global warming stopped?

Sun Jan 13 23:22:53 UTC 2008

David Whitehouse: Has global warming stopped?
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004
7.12.19
[There are 620 comments, which you can get to by clicking the URL. More 
will roll in. It would be way, way too long for this list, so I am 
deleting all but the very first few. This article was linked by Arts & 
Letters Daily.]

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically
the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Havent
we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond
doubt and that all thats left to the so-called sceptics is the
odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?

Arent we told that if we dont act now rising temperatures will
render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our
lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the
recent IPCCs Synthesis report that says climate change could
become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges
that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the
global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006
there has been no warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically
the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming
has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the
world are not increasing as they should according to the
fundamental theory behind global warming the greenhouse effect.
Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what
or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon
dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared
radiation from the earths surface causing some heat to be
retained.

Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of
greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil
fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world
warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics
of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing
global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global
temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earths
atmosphere. Its a straight line upward. It is currently about 390
parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm.
Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable
it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse
effect is working as we think then the Earths temperature will
rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.

But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little
inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used
by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
UKs Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) its apparent
that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming a temperature
increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm).
But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the
CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means
that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it
would have been had the rapid increase continued.

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has
stopped. Its not a viewpoint or a sceptics inaccuracy. Its an
observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is
warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence
(in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is
responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows
that global warming as such has ceased.

The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to
aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse
gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of
reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby
reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed
to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.

But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global
temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the
quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must
be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to
offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the
temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely.
Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling
effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation.

But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly
compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising
CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis
of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects
are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not
impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some,
the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didnt discuss this or
that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail
at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the
flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we
would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in
the 1970s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and
politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But
if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?

Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is
now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or
indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming
effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.

Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is
a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not
pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working
hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.

I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians,
that the time for argument is over and that further scientific
debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly
what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must
never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause,
however noble.

The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we
are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such
a complicated system as the Earths atmospheres interaction with
sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or
would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming
has stopped.

David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 19881998, Science
Editor BBC News Online 19982006 and the 2004 European Internet
Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is
the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His
website is www.davidwhitehouse.com

620 comments from readers

JZ Smith
19 December 2007
Mr Whitehouse,

Too bad the AGW has already left the station. As a skeptic
moving further toward skepticism, I am disappointed that
so many scientists have apparently accepted the finality
of AGW. Those most strongly touting the "truth" of AGW are
forcing themselves into the position of eventually either
flip-flopping on the issue, or, more disturbingly, working
to silence those voices with whom they disagree.

jimbeaux
19 December 2007
I'm confused. On one hand, I've read that 2007 is shaping
up to be the 8th warmest year on record, and that seven of
the eight warmest years on record have occurred since
2001, and the 10 warmest have all occurred since 1997.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/record-temperature-47121805

On the other hand, we have this info here.

So a poor layman like me is confused by the contradictory
stories. Which is correct? Can references be posted?

NORMSMITH
20 December 2007
Everything makes sense when you look at the graphs from
the Vostok Ice cores. Earth goes through a predictable
pattern of long ice ages which are separated by
comparatively warm intervals called interglaciations. The
ice ages last about 100,000 years and the warm intervals
last about 12,000 years.

This pattern has nothing to do with human activity, as it
goes back before modern man was here. CO2 always rises
with the temperature.

Our current warm interval - The Holocene - is almost over.
The previous warm interval - The Eemian - was way hotter
than todays Holocene. If humans had been around 125,000
years ago there would have been some Al Gore type pointing
to the rising temperature and CO2 and blaming it on human
activity.

I encourage all Global Warming alarmists to look at the
Vostok graphs. You will quickly see that everything
happens in a natural cycle. Read up on the |Holocene and
the Eemian.

Nothing new is happening. Mother Nature has her own
patterns we barely understand. Humans don't have the
ability to control the climate. That's ego and
self-congratulatory backslapping taken to an unprecedented
level.

And one more thing - look at the Sea Level history charts
that go back 18,000 years. Now there's a big reality check
if you can handle it. The charts show a trend that is
decreasing and about to plateau.

Wake up and don't get suckered in by the carbon-taxers.

Frank
20 December 2007
This will not suit Gordon Brown. No tax revenue in it.

DennisA
20 December 2007
Since 1659, the hottest Central England temperatures are:

winter - 1869, followed by 1834

spring - 1893 followed by 1945

summer - 1976 followed by 1826

autumn - at last success for global warming, 2006, but
followed by 1730, 1731 and 1729. This year ranked number
42 out of 349 years.

mitchy
20 December 2007
I think I'll reserve judgement for now, 7 years isnt a
long time to suddenly decide global warming isnt
happening.

Fact is, there are lots of factors affecting the planetary
climate, its orbit, the sun's cycles, and the Earth's own
natural cycles. However, I do not accept the arguement
that our presence is not sufficient to affect the climate.
I think this is a naive and frankly parochial view which
fails to take into account the very clear effects we are
indeed having on the planet. Massive deforestation, dying
coral reefs, rampant loss of biodiversity, atmospheric and
aquatic pollution are all having an effect, which is
undoubtably contributing to what is happening overall.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not of the view that we are the
sole cause of climate change, but I do think we are
messing about with a delicately balanced system and, given
enough time, we will eventually tip the system beyond the
effects solely caused by natural oscillations.

Regardless of any of this, another inescapable fact is
that we (particularly in the west) are consuming natural
resources at an utterly unsustainable rate, which is
reason alone to curb our excesses and try to think beyond
immediate short-term gratification. China and India are
catching up fast, so we really need to lead by example and
start being a bit more sensible with our resources, before
we start warring with each other over dwindling resources
(like we arent already).

Mike
20 December 2007
Thank you Mr. Whitehouse.

In a day and age where the politics surrounding this issue
have the potential to be far deadlier than the topic at
hand, I am thankful for people like you.

Mike in California

sprungmonkey12
20 December 2007
jimbeaux - I'm with you, I'd like clarification on the
conflicting reports, however, the link article you
referred to is for US temps, not global temps. Perhaps
that is where the difference lies. Wish someone would back
this up. I need some ammunition before visiting some
"over-the-top" global warming alarmists relatives for
Christmas. We have to pack our own TP as they ration
everyone's squares. True story.

SCEPTIC
20 December 2007
YOUR ARTICLE IS PAID GOVERNMENT NONSENSE

GLOBAL WARMING IS MEASURED NOT ONLY BY TEMPERATURES BUT
ALSO BY AMOUNT OF MELTING ICE GO TO THIS LINK AND SEE
YOURSELF......

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/

thuntley
20 December 2007
Hey SCEPTIC, you reference a site supportec by the New
York Times. Not necessarily what one would call an
"unbiased scientific resoure". Why not check out the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They've
got more weather data than anyone. Chillin'Out

david
20 December 2007
It seems odd Mr Whitehouse doesn't provide any data to
support his idea. Is it because they don't?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Cybertiger
20 December 2007
I agree - global warming is cobblers. Our global problems
are too many people and rapidly diminishing fossilised
carbon energy. George Bush may spew a lot of hot air but
let us be confident that he will do something about our
little problems.