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

John West's picture

I am not confused at all. The earth is responding to the activity of the Sun and it's oscillating climate producing systems such as ocean currents. It always has. We happen to be noticing it because we now have technology to measure it..

We will adapt as we have always done in the past or else we would not still be here.

The global warming scare is a political agenda and we are being lied to .

Al Gore is the king with no clothes.

Nelson1's picture

Bobclive, here's some commentary on the McKitrick and Michaels 2007 paper you linked to:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/are-temperature-tr...

Maz's picture

Nelson
There is probably very little that anyone on here can teach you but I shall humbly give it a go. You are correct in not reading too much into claims that Mars, Jupiter & Pluto have warmed. We are very far from fully understanding the climate on this planet so I would suppose that our understanding of other planets’ climate is even poorer.

The Sun is not just a large furnace 90M miles away. It is much more than that and its influence stretches far beyond the orbit of Pluto. Solar activity cannot be measured solely by the total irradiance. That is just one factor out of many indices of solar activity. So dismissing solar influence on that basis alone is clearly wrong.

The longest running record we have of solar activity is that of the Geomagnetic Index. http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/3/1/4 It stretches back just beyond the start of the instrumental record and is particularly useful for comparative purposes. I’ve already pointed this out to you but you again insist on stating that solar activity has remained unchanged. It clearly has not. And the fact that the Aa index, in spite of dropping recently, remains well above the value for the start of the 20th century is obvious from this record and in my view, highly significant. Perhaps you would like to pose a carefully worded question to Tamino or the Hockey Team at Real Climate (sites you evidently trust) as to why the IPCC think it is not significant. Don’t forget to make it clear which side of the “debate” you are on, if you don’t want to be ignored or censured. Then come back and tell us. Good Luck!

Brute's picture

Mr. Martin,

You wrote: We aren't advocating that people wear hair shirts and live on bread and water.

Unfortunately, the Alarmists are..................They refuse to accept Nuclear Energy technology and other alternative methods of energy generation. The only solution acceptable to Greens of this perceived problem is population control and drastic reductions in energy consumption, (no matter the source), through taxation, mandatory energy rationing and minimalism.

You’ve sidestepped the challenge to reduce your own energy use by 50%. Why would you not voluntarily make a commitment to “save the planet” in such a manner if you so robustly believe that your excessive energy consumption is causing harm to the planet? (I suspect that it is just my energy consumption that you are concerned with.) I thought that your position was that we have reached “the tipping point”?

Brute's picture

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

Now THIS is interesting: Pielke on Dr. Joanne Simpson
27 02 2008
The Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weblog today includes a letter from Dr. Joanne Simpson, recently retired. He calls her “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years”. It seems that she really spoke her mind on the subject of climate models and the problems of the changing measurement environment around climate monitoring stations.
The full letter is here on that weblog.
Excerpt:
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. […] The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.
We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. […] The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use.
No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas.
[…] But as a scientist I remain skeptical. I decided to keep quiet in this controversy until I had a positive contribution to make. […] Both sides (of climate debate) are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences.

Nelson1's picture

'3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade'

And here we go again. Doesn't it concern you that Watts made no effort to determine statistical significance? Ten years is too short a period (as he could quite easily show if he also analysed trends for 9 and 11 years. They'd be vastly different).

Always remember that the data are noisy and the trend is small. Here's an analogy: in 12 hours time it'll be 5-10 degrees cooler here. I could plot a beautiful graph of ambient temperature over that time. Look at the cooling trend! Does it mean global warming has stopped, though...?

thuntley's picture

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

bobclive's picture

Question,
How much land is required to grow Bio-fuel.
Answer
Currently, we can get 50 gallons (soybean) to 200 gallons (mustard multicrop) per acre per year.
response,
That's not much fuel,

Alex2's picture

What this whole thread has conclusively shown is that man-made CO2 is absolutley not responsible for global warming. That some people still cling to the belief that changing the overall composition of our atmosphere by 0.002% will stop the planet from warming up is truly astounding.

Hok'tar's picture

QUOTING: bitin
21 December 2007

I think that the global warming phenomenon is way less related to climate change than it is related to the mass psychology of "Western" mind:

The logic evolves the following way

a. we (Western civilization) are evil

b. therefore we inflict evil changes on the world

c. but we can do something about it

d. let's reverse these changes

Enjoy
END QUOTE

>>>>THIS is what the Great GW Flap is all about. Having worked in the sociological slipstream of several of the local UK GW/green luminaries for a couple of decades, I've always been struck by the psychological malaise of this miserable band. As I always said to my staff, 'Get the people thing right, and the planet will take care of itself - and us.'

The GGW Flap is, in my considered opinion, a stark symptom of Western self-hatred coupled with profound guilt conflicted by overweening ego. If half these Flappers would devote their energies into taking care of their fellow humans, this GW 'problem' would melt away.

Latest tweets