Global Warming Ended in 1998

[Bubble Wrap]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...09/ixworld.html

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

By Bob Carter

(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

? Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

[gigapixels Veteran]

:laugh: Wow, I guess some people jump to conclusions too much and bring the entire world with them. Nice to hear it's no big deal.

[xploit1030]

I don't trust any articles written about issues this politically oriented because they are almost always biased. It is easy to manipulate data to paint the picture you want it to.

[Mathiasdm]

So what about this article?

[conna]

no matter what, pure clean air is better for you.

[raskren]

Warmer temperatures means that the are I live in will soon be a tropical paradise.

Thanks global warming!

Oh, wait...

[Hurmoth]

I don't trust any articles written about issues this politically oriented because they are almost always biased. It is easy to manipulate data to paint the picture you want it to.

That's the problem with global warming in the first place. It shouldn't be a political issue! Why should Democrats be for it and Republicans be against it? It doesn't make sense. And why exactly are Republicans against the idea that Global Warming is not the cause for the warming of the earth? Are we (including myself since I am a self-proclaimed Republican) to affraid to admit that we do damage to the earth or do we just want to do whatever we want no matter the outcome?

I personally don't agree with Global Warming because there just isn't enough evidence to fully suggest that humans are fully responsable for the recent warming trend. Another thing, there are to many politics involved with the studying of Global Warming to fully believe that the scientist involved aren't just trying to please the people paying them to do the study. Simply put, we need double-blinded studies, a lot of them.

We need less lawyers and politicians trying to come up with new laws about what we can and cannot do and more scientist in the field trying to prove or disprove the theory of Global Warming. I personally am open to the idea, but I am not going to believe anything from a lawyer or a politician.

I highly recommend the Michael Crichton novel State of Fear for anyone interesting in the theory of Global Warming. And remember, Global Warming is still considered a theory, because not even all the scientist agree with each other about it. What we can agree on is that the recent warming trend started in or around 1850 and we cannot for sure say how much of the recent warming trend is man made or a natural phenomenon.

So what about this article?

Again, who do you believe? Any article that has a politician in it, regardless of party, makes me turn away from it because this shouldn't be a political issue.

Anyway, now I'm moving it here because this is a better home for it... Thread Moved

[Shibby]

I don't think the emissions we produced caused the problem anyway. For all we know it could be the earth. heck even the solar system!

But i still think it's really good we are trying our best to reduce emissions. because it will only help the studies and also advance man kind knowledge on such things and make more cheaper alterantives to things.

[_kane81]

I wouldnt trust the article, the way it has been written is very poor in terms of scientific publications.....

[davemania]

I wouldnt trust the article, the way it has been written is very poor in terms of scientific publications.....

I agree, another op-ed piece light on facts. I've posted this before and i'll post it again

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

[Beastage]

erm... NASA announced that 2005 was a peak year in tempartures... followed by 2004, 2003,2002,2001 and 1998... sry but NASA wins in my opinion

[Hurmoth]

erm... NASA announced that 2005 was a peak year in tempartures... followed by 2004, 2003,2002,2001 and 1998... sry but NASA wins in my opinion

Yeah, but then again every time they send a space ship up to space it always seems to blow up. They're real geniuses :laugh:

[davemania]

Yeah, but then again every time they send a space ship up to space it always seems to blow up. They're real geniuses :laugh:

Because it's rocket science :whistle:

[ThePitt]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

LOL. Scary.

Tell that to the next generations. About +50 years on the future

[John S. Veteran]

erm... NASA announced that 2005 was a peak year in tempartures... followed by 2004, 2003,2002,2001 and 1998... sry but NASA wins in my opinion

Peak compared to what? 100 years of data? Faulty computer models and guesses? We still can't predict the weather days in advance, it's preposterous to assume we can guess future decades.

[Hurmoth]

Peak compared to what? 100 years of data? Faulty computer models and guesses? We still can't predict the weather days in advance, it's preposterous to assume we can guess future decades.

Great point. And again we don't know how much of this is man-made. We could start getting a cold spell 10 years from now, we just don't know.

[El Bourricot]

I read a great article about how the real reason behind any warming (if there is) is that the Sun is entering a phase of its life where it's expanding or something, either that or there is an increase in its activity which is periodic. I need to find it again, because it was very convincing. It was also in a good science magazine, with reputable names attached.

[Captain_Wang]

I read that too Bourricot, it did seem true as far as someone can tell on these things.

[davemania]

Peak compared to what? 100 years of data? Faulty computer models and guesses? We still can't predict the weather days in advance, it's preposterous to assume we can guess future decades.

Please, more than 100 years of data are used :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

erm... NASA announced that 2005 was a peak year in tempartures... followed by 2004, 2003,2002,2001 and 1998... sry but NASA wins in my opinion

Hell its the hottest winter on record where I am in Canada. Honestly as much people don't want to beleive that global warming is a problem it is. Man made? Probably not entirely, but it is something that needs to be dealt with. And if hysteria about global warming is what it takes for pollution to be dealt with... Then bring on the histerics.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Humans are effecting the climate, Humans (as a whole) are putting so much C02 into the atmosphere, and have been doing it since the industrial revolution, and it's only increasing (just like global temperatures)

I read somewhere that since the start of the industrial revolution we had put out a total of 30% (or so) of the amount of natural C02 that has existed for thousand of years before hand (e.g. if nature put out 100% over thousand of years, we have matched 30% of that value in around 200 years)

Add in the fact we are cutting down forests (and forests have flipped and started producing C02).

We cant harm the Earth (it's a massive chunk of rock), but we can certainly kill every life form on it's surface.

[Fourjays Veteran]

I think "global warming" is part human and part natural. The Earths climate changes all the time, however I feel that human "interference" has caused climate changes that normally take thousands to millions of years, to happen within a very short period of time.

If the climate changes, it changes. It has changed many times before, and life has survived, so I'm sure it will again - the media makes it out that if climate changes will make us go pop. Additionally, the media and politicians seem to expect that the planet will remain the same as it is now, forever - again this won't happen, because it is always changing - you only have to look at old maps to see that.

On a side note, where I live, it has been much colder than in recent years this winter - according to my Mum, it has been more like winters in the 1950s/60s.

More research needs to be done into global warming, to see how exactly it does effect the earth - if it does at all. Too much of it at the moment is speculation and theory, IMO.

[Hum]

:laugh: I thought I noticed a cool breeze in 1998 ... If humans are generating more energy to take care of an increasing population, it just makes sense that the atmosphere will get warmer. I'm not sure that's a bad thing tho.

We could send water to Mars to counter the rising shorelines. :yes:

[Dashel]

Yeah, but then again every time they send a space ship up to space it always seems to blow up. They're real geniuses laugh.gif

What a ignorent, disgusting, and prickish thing to say. You should be ashamed.

Gee, we know what greenhouse gases are and how the effect works. Now, lets dump a ****load of those chemicals in the upper atmosphere and WONDER what might happen.

Edited April 21, 2006 by Dashel

[John Veteran]

Anyone who believes this crap simply does not understand what "global warming" means. It's not a rise in temperature of one degree over a whole year. It's a steady increase of the average temperatures over several decades or hundreds of years. Looking at the temperatures for only a few years proves nothing because that is too narrow. You have to look at the wider picture.