Has global warming stopped?

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

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'. Plus read Mark Lynas's response

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

Aren’t we told that if we don’t 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 IPCC’s 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 earth’s 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 Earth’s atmosphere. It’s 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 Earth’s 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 UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s 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. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s 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 didn’t 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 1970’s, 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 Earth’s atmosphere’s 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 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 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

1304 comments

Pat T's picture

And please, those who still deny the warming, no, this isn't akin to measuring weight loss over a matter of hours - we're talking about a nine year mini-trend out of a 35 year trend (remember, it warmed, then it cooled, then it warmed again, so it really isn't a century-long trend of warming, is it). How can you argue that nine years means nothing but 35 years means everything? And more importantly will you keep arguing it when nine becomes ten becomes twelve? I think the talking points will start to change soon - I think they're going to switch to "global dimming offsetting global warming" to give themselves plausible deniability within 2008.

And when they do, just remember, you heard it here first and you know what it is - and what it is isn't "new data clarifying the picture on the true threat posed by mankind" - but rather, a change in the story to account for facts that refuted their former story.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have heard it here first.

Patrick Hadley's picture

Those still reading this thread should be interested to see that Mr Whitehouse has been supported by the latest figures from NASA's Godard Institute for Space Studies. They tell us that the global temperature average anomaly for January 2008 was 0.12 C. This is the coldest month on the planet since May 1995, and the coldest January since 1989. Temperatures dropped by more in the last 12 months than in any year since records began in 1880.

As time goes on the correctness of this article will become more and more undeniable.

Brute's picture

Or maybe it could simply be that environmentalists are egotistical snobs.........makes more sense and takes less explanation.

JZ Smith's picture

Brute,

I wish it was all just a joke, that could be easily passed off as just the rantings of the lunatic fringe, but honestly, these "solutions" are logical steps in the AGW agenda. They will deny it today, but like the pit bull who cinches up his hold on the throat of his opponent as it thrashes about to get free, we will soon be in a stranglehold to those who, as someone here quoted HL Menken, wants to 'save mankind by controlling it' (paraphrasing).

Peter Martin's picture

BobClive,

Before you lay claim to Dr Ben McNeil as one of your own maybe you should read what he is actually saying rather than the "mickey-mouse" website which you linked to claims he is saying? http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/res.summary.html
http://www.unsw.edu.au/research/res/resmag/17_GlobalWarming.pdf

The point about coral is that it does occupy waters with a range of temperatures. And if those temperatures change slowly enough Dr McNeil is saying that it may, just may, be able to adapt. However the question is whether the temperature change will be slow enough to allow that to happen.

The analogy would be the more common flora and fauna which we see on land. In principle, if the temperature increases then everything just shifts North (or South in the Southern Hemisphere) to compensate. It might not suit the animals who inhabit the polar regions though. The change has to be slow though, much slower than is actually happening, or we'll have mass extinctions.

jackdromie's picture

er amos83 - I think you are a bit confused. Dr Whitehouse is pointing out - quite correctly - that there has been a recent change and that requires an explanation.

Er if CO2 is so bad why do commercial growers increase its level in their glasshouses beyond what is in the atmosphere?

Brute's picture

"It doesn't matter what the data are"

Well said. I would think that Environmentalists would be happy at any glimmer of good news; (unless there is an ulterior motive).

bobclive's picture

Aug 2007.
D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

Worth pondering

Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

bobclive's picture

Nelson, realclimate, Mann in particular, even now cannot accept that the hockey stick study was flawed and discredited. This means they are entrenched in their views of AGW and no study or persons outside of their grouping will convince them otherwise, the site is biased.

This gives an indication of how this grouping try to discount the worth of other valid opinions.

link

Mr Fnortner's picture

Corrected for grammar and typos:

I love 2x2 grids. Thanks for yours, Peter Martin.

Of course great novels could be written describing each of the quadrants. George Orwell, or Charles Dickens, if we had them, is just the author we need here. I think quadrant 3 and 4 are the Type 1 error being made, as you know.

But my real fear, greater than warming (which I am prepared to concede to you if need be) is the totalitarian who cannot resist a golden opportunity to oppress his fellow man. There is more than enough evidence throughout history to show us the he needs little in the way of invitation. He almost always arrives as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Latest tweets