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
That nov55 site you linked has some, erm, 'interesting' science on it. It's not one I'd recommend...
Brute,
This is from the Royal Society's web site about climate myths: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233
What does the science say about solar activity?
Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence the climate but cannot, on its own, account for all the changes in global average temperature we have seen in the 20th Century.
Changes in the Sun's activity influence the Earth's climate through small but significant variations in its intensity. When it is in a more active' phase as indicated by a greater number of sunspots on its surface it emits more light and heat. While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures.
The magnitude and pattern of changes to temperatures can only be understood by taking all of the relevant factors both natural and human into account. For example, major volcanic eruptions produce a cooling effect because they blast ash and other particles into the atmosphere where they persist for a few years and reduce the amount of the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth's surface. Also, burning fossil fuels produces particles called sulphate aerosols which tend to cool the climate in the same way.
Over the first part of the 20th Century higher levels of solar activity combined with increases in human generated carbon dioxide to raise temperatures. Between 1940 and 1970 the carbon dioxide effect was probably offset by increasing amounts of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, and a slight downturn in solar activity, as well as enhanced volcanic activity.
During this period global temperatures dropped. However, in the latter part of the 20th Century temperatures rose well above the levels of the 1940s. Strong measures taken to reduce sulphate pollution in some regions of the world meant that industrial aerosols began to provide less compensation for an increasing warming caused by carbon dioxide. The rising temperature during this period has been partly abated by occasional volcanic eruptions.
Nelson, That Mann`s Blog, they still believe there is no little ice age or Medieval warm period, suggest a site that is neutral, only AGW`s go there.
Look if you are on a bus and it stops to let you off, you cant say it did not stop or that it really slowed to a crawl...it stopped...it did not go forward, it did not go backward. It stopped. There is every liklyhood that it will go forward again to the next stop... but that is the best you can say until it actualy does.
Peter Martin:
Regarding your post about energy usage, I thought it could be useful to recall my post of Jan 14th on a related matter: [sorry, I'd have linked to it if possible]
" JZ Smith
14 January 2008
A bit off-topic, but the discussions above regarding the use of fossil fuels, and the often-used statement that 'the USA is the largest consumer of energy' got wondering about global energy usage. My argument against the USA being the "largest user" of energy has always been that we use the most because we produce the most, but have never really looked at the numbers before.
So some quick internet research comes up with some interesting bits: [But first a caveat: I am neither a scientist nor statistician; I'm only as smart as what I can read!]
I don't mean to pick on the EU, but it is a good comparison to the USA. More in-depth research may well produce better and more accurate answers, but here goes:
EU population: 495m
USA pop: 303m
EU GDP: $14.6t
USA GDP: $13.1t
EU per capita GDP: $28.213
USA per cap GDP: $44,198
EU "primary" energy consumption: 78 quadrillion BTU
USA consumption: 122 quad BTU
Doing the math:
EU per cap GDP/ Quad BTUs = $362
USA per cap GDP/Quad BTUs= $361
So by comparison, the USA produces nearly double the per capita GDP as the EU, at roughly the same cost in quadrillion BTU's of energy usage. In other words, the USA's productivity is nearly double that of the EU, but use nearly an identical amount of energy to produce it.
[OK, so I'm not a mathematician, either. If I've done my math wrong, please be gentle in correcting me.]
To conclude, then, to argue that the USA is a wasteful user of energy, compared, at least, to the EU, is not true.
By extension then, could not significant gains in energy efficiency be made, thus lowering carbon emissions to the atmosphere, but focusing attention on the EU and probably even more importantly on 2nd and 3rd world economies? Worded differently, more gains can be had by cleaning up the developing economies than working to clean up an already efficient developed economies.
Sources:
link 1
link 2
link 3
JZ Smith
14 January 2008
Further clarification on my last post.
I wrote: "So by comparison, the USA produces nearly double the per capita GDP as the EU, at roughly the same cost in quadrillion BTU's of energy usage. In other words, the USA's productivity is nearly double that of the EU, but use nearly an identical amount of energy to produce it."
I should have written, "...nearly an identical amount of energy to produce it (per quad BTU's)."
So the USA is, on a per capita GDP basis, far more efficient in energy use that is the EU. Far more. Not only that, but the US CO2 output dropped in recent years compared to a rise in the EU. From a recent Wall Street Journal piece:
"Since 2000, emissions of CO2 have been growing more rapidly in Europe, with all its capping and yapping, than in the U.S., where there has been minimal government intervention so far. As of 2005, we're talking about a 3.8% rise in the EU-15 versus a 2.5% increase in the U.S., according to statistics from the United Nations.
What's more, preliminary data indicate that America's CO2 output fell by 1.3% from 2005 to 2006. If these numbers hold up, it would mean U.S. emissions growth is nearly flat so far this decade. Europe hasn't yet released figures for last year, but it did report in June that emissions from the participants in its carbon-trading scheme, which account for almost half of Europe's CO2 production, rose slightly in 2006."
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118764555108003341.html
Gore never states a time in the future when the 20 foot increase would occur. He simply states that there would be an increase of 20 feet in the sea level if such and such happened.
Why argue about this? In my view it is a complete waste of time.
W. Falicoff
One should also remember Occam's razor. This is (cited from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor ) a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Thus, if there is a mechanistic understanding of global warming (greenhouse gases) that fits in with observations (increased CO2) other explanation (cosmic rays, unknown solar mechanisms) must be validated by both data and theory in order to replace the current understanding of the science. Possible does not equal plausible.
Crocodiles roaming the Arctic - this sounds very fanciable, even to an old sceptic like me...
link
Peter Martin,
My reference to the temperature of the Medieval Warm period is the History Channel's program on the subject.
http://www.history.com/shows.do?episodeId=173248&action=detail
I do hope you are correct about AGW and the possibility of global COOLING. Warming will be much less of a problem for the Earth.
Authoritarian solutions for AGW:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d82b4774-a229-4e08-875b-a66a163...