Has global warming stopped?
'The global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since"
By David Whitehouse Published 19 December 2007'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
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


1304 comments
Stargazer,
'what I am asking is how did the temp ever manage to come down as it,did lots of times.'
An interesting question. Obviously the initial stimulus (e.g. Milankovitch cycling) terminated for one thing; also, the secondar rise in atmospheric CO2 was from finite sources (ocean outgassing, release from permafrost).
But it's moot: the point is that you and others have argued that because in a number of previous histroical warming events (not all...) the CO2 rise occurred after at least some of the initial warming, and that therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of current warming. This argument fails spectacularly.
Peter Martin
Perhaps the word “opinion” has different connotations for you than it does for me.
Nevertheless, I want to thank you again for drawing my attention to corroborating evidence for the sequence of high and low water levels I have found at Derby.
You tell me that the Roman port was located in Ostia at the mouth of the River Tiber and it is now well and truly high and dry. This fits into the pattern I have discovered in England. The sequence of warm periods are Bronze Age, Roman period and Medieval Warm Period. Between each there has been a cold period when ice sheets have reformed dropping the sea levels. When the Romans came to Derby in around AD 68 they built their first fort above the 55 metre contour. After a century they were able to move down to just near the 50 metre contour to the site now called Little Chester or Deventio. When the Vikings came the water was above the 50 metre contour and did not fall below it until the middle of the eleventh century. Since then the Little Ice Age drastically reduced water levels causing the floodplains to become inhabitable. Curiously the recent floods at Tewksbury did not affect the medieval abbey, founded in 1087 by nobleman Robert FitzHamon, which was probably built on an island, a site favoured by the monks of the time. When the floods came it was an island once more.
Will sea levels rise 20 feet as Gore predicts?
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0706/0706sealevels.htm
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/
'Flies in the laws of physics', '100% bunk'? The greehouse effect is solid, established physics. It's not often explained well, however. Try these, which debunk the saturation argument very nicely:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-...
Mr. Guenier,
You're awfully optimistic. If politicians or governments are involved it either will not happen, will cost 200 times more than budgeted, or the revenue earmarked for the project(s) will be diverted to some other project/porkbarrel set-asides. (See my rather lengthy post on January 5th “The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In”). The majority of revenue from “Green Taxes” remitted to the government of the United Kingdom is used for purposes other than reducing “greenhouse gases”. A private industry operates, for the most part, much more efficiently/economically and is held accountable by their investors, (unless the industry is subsidized by a government).
I’m certain Al Gore, George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Clinton and other drumbeaters could raise enough capital to fund research and development.
Curiously, they won’t put up their money; however, are quite generous with our money.
Maz, I don't dispute the important role of the sun in regulating our climate either. After all, it is the principal source of energy into the climate.
Regarding the search for some other contribution of the sun to climate change: you can find any number of variables that roughly track global temperatures. There's a famous one at venganza.org that claims global warming is due to a decline in pirates.
You also need to give a mechanism. Oh, and of course you mustn't forget that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing. They _will_ cause warming. Would you pretend that they don't? Why look for some mysterious variable x and unknown mechanism y when there's one that accounts for warming right in front of us?
Mr. Martin,
You wrote: "But, even if everyone did the same thing it may not be enough."
Seriously, you’re getting yourself worked up about a non-existent problem…….
More snow cover in the northern hemisphere since 1966:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
After a debate lasting a number of months and with well over 1200 comments we've decided to close this particular thread. Many thanks to you all for your contributions. Don't forget to check out Ecopedia for more environmental coverage