Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

[GaryC 7]

Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor

Last Updated: 6:01pm BST 30/04/2008

Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Melting icebergs: The study predicts the IPCC's 0.3ºC temperature rise for the next decade may not happen

The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged.

This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."

He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away.

The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998. (gee I wonder what else they left out?)

Today's paper in Nature tries to simulate the variability of these events and longer cycles, such as the giant ocean "conveyor belt" known as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), which brings warm water north into the North East Atlantic.

This has a 70 to 80-year cycle and when the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures in Europe. When it is weak, as it will be over the next decade, temperatures fall. Scientists think that variations of this kind could partly explain the cooling of global average temperatures between the 1940s and 1970s after which temperatures rose again.

Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014

Writing in Nature, the scientists said: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming."

The study shows a more pronounced weakening effect than the Met Office's Hadley Centre, which last year predicted that global warming would slow until 2009 and pick up after that, with half the years after 2009 being warmer than the warmest year on record, 1998.

Commenting on the new study, Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre said the model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect around the North Atlantic.

"Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"That emphasises once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades."

But he said the use of just sea surface temperatures might not accurately reflect the state of the MOC, which was several miles deep and dependent on factors besides temperatures, such as salt content, which were included in the Met Office Hadley Centre model.

If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...aclimate130.xml

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Quit fighting the system Gary and pay your carbon tax.

P.S. Science isn't like American Idol.. whoever gets the most votes doesn't win with science.

[PlatyPius 5]

There really hasn't been any "science" that I have seen in the global warming debate....just a lot of yelling and the "pulling of data out of one's #######".

The Earth warms up.

The Earth cools off.

Get used to it.

[GaryC 7]

There really hasn't been any "science" that I have seen in the global warming debate....just a lot of yelling and the "pulling of data out of one's #######".

The Earth warms up.

The Earth cools off.

Get used to it.

[HAL 9000 96]

Please re-read the article. It is pretty clear in stating the temporary nature of the natural phenomenon being observed. There are some points that you did not highlight that completely discredit your POV and are at the very heart of the nature of the observations.

[GaryC 7]

Please re-read the article. It is pretty clear in stating the temporary nature of the natural phenomenon being observed. There are some points that you did not highlight that completely discredit your POV and are at the very heart of the nature of the observations.

Nah, I expected this. It's been obvious that the warming stopped several years ago. When it couldn't be ignored any longer I knew they had to address it. I also knew that they would come up with some excuse to avoid saying they were wrong. They just bought themselves another 10 years. I have said and I still maintain the Man Made GW is a myth. The earth gets warm and the earth cools off. We don't have anything to do with it. My guess is that 10 years from now they will come up with another excuse as to why the melt down hasn't occurred. This is nothing but a CYA by the scientists.

[HAL 9000 96]

Please re-read the article. It is pretty clear in stating the temporary nature of the natural phenomenon being observed. There are some points that you did not highlight that completely discredit your POV and are at the very heart of the nature of the observations.

Nah, I expected this. It's been obvious that the warming stopped several years ago. When it couldn't be ignored any longer I knew they had to address it. I also knew that they would come up with some excuse to avoid saying they were wrong. They just bought themselves another 10 years. I have said and I still maintain the Man Made GW is a myth. The earth gets warm and the earth cools off. We don't have anything to do with it. My guess is that 10 years from now they will come up with another excuse as to why the melt down hasn't occurred. This is nothing but a CYA by the scientists.

No need to get so defensive about your POV. I think I have explained it several times- you need to understand the difference between climate and weather to understand the observations and the time scales being made here.

[GaryC 7]

Please re-read the article. It is pretty clear in stating the temporary nature of the natural phenomenon being observed. There are some points that you did not highlight that completely discredit your POV and are at the very heart of the nature of the observations.

Nah, I expected this. It's been obvious that the warming stopped several years ago. When it couldn't be ignored any longer I knew they had to address it. I also knew that they would come up with some excuse to avoid saying they were wrong. They just bought themselves another 10 years. I have said and I still maintain the Man Made GW is a myth. The earth gets warm and the earth cools off. We don't have anything to do with it. My guess is that 10 years from now they will come up with another excuse as to why the melt down hasn't occurred. This is nothing but a CYA by the scientists.

No need to get so defensive about your POV. I think I have explained it several times- you need to understand the difference between climate and weather to understand the observations and the time scales being made here.

I am not defensive. As I said I expected something like this for a while now. It's natural for the scientists to make excuses for why their models have been wrong and I didn't expect them to come right out and say they were wrong. They are, after all, human first and scientists second. I also expect that in the next few years to see more stories like this to come out, each one with a little more doubt about the role of man in our climate changes. I think that by the time their 8 year window of cooling passes you will see a majority of scientists converting to skeptics in regard to man produced CO2 and global warming. I know that you don't agree and thats OK. Time will prove me right in the end I think. In the mean time we can agree to disagree.

[Sister Fracas 5]

I am not defensive. As I said I expected something like this for a while now. It's natural for the scientists to make excuses for why their models have been wrong and I didn't expect them to come right out and say they were wrong. They are, after all, human first and scientists second. I also expect that in the next few years to see more stories like this to come out, each one with a little more doubt about the role of man in our climate changes. I think that by the time their 8 year window of cooling passes you will see a majority of scientists converting to skeptics in regard to man produced CO2 and global warming. I know that you don't agree and thats OK. Time will prove me right in the end I think. In the mean time we can agree to disagree.

so YAY... we can go back to pumping the environment around us full of all kinds of #######...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

First they were wrong about the planet not being flat and now this! What a bunch of losers!

[GaryC 7]

I am not defensive. As I said I expected something like this for a while now. It's natural for the scientists to make excuses for why their models have been wrong and I didn't expect them to come right out and say they were wrong. They are, after all, human first and scientists second. I also expect that in the next few years to see more stories like this to come out, each one with a little more doubt about the role of man in our climate changes. I think that by the time their 8 year window of cooling passes you will see a majority of scientists converting to skeptics in regard to man produced CO2 and global warming. I know that you don't agree and thats OK. Time will prove me right in the end I think. In the mean time we can agree to disagree.

so YAY... we can go back to pumping the environment around us full of all kinds of #######...

No, pollution is a very real problem. It's just CO2 that isn't.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I am not defensive. As I said I expected something like this for a while now. It's natural for the scientists to make excuses for why their models have been wrong and I didn't expect them to come right out and say they were wrong. They are, after all, human first and scientists second. I also expect that in the next few years to see more stories like this to come out, each one with a little more doubt about the role of man in our climate changes. I think that by the time their 8 year window of cooling passes you will see a majority of scientists converting to skeptics in regard to man produced CO2 and global warming. I know that you don't agree and thats OK. Time will prove me right in the end I think. In the mean time we can agree to disagree.

so YAY... we can go back to pumping the environment around us full of all kinds of #######...

in fact, i plan on having a jalapena and pepperoni pizza tonight, i'll be pumping the environment fulla ####### tomorrow

[HAL 9000 96]

Please re-read the article. It is pretty clear in stating the temporary nature of the natural phenomenon being observed. There are some points that you did not highlight that completely discredit your POV and are at the very heart of the nature of the observations.

Nah, I expected this. It's been obvious that the warming stopped several years ago. When it couldn't be ignored any longer I knew they had to address it. I also knew that they would come up with some excuse to avoid saying they were wrong. They just bought themselves another 10 years. I have said and I still maintain the Man Made GW is a myth. The earth gets warm and the earth cools off. We don't have anything to do with it. My guess is that 10 years from now they will come up with another excuse as to why the melt down hasn't occurred. This is nothing but a CYA by the scientists.

No need to get so defensive about your POV. I think I have explained it several times- you need to understand the difference between climate and weather to understand the observations and the time scales being made here.

I am not defensive. As I said I expected something like this for a while now. It's natural for the scientists to make excuses for why their models have been wrong and I didn't expect them to come right out and say they were wrong. They are, after all, human first and scientists second. I also expect that in the next few years to see more stories like this to come out, each one with a little more doubt about the role of man in our climate changes. I think that by the time their 8 year window of cooling passes you will see a majority of scientists converting to skeptics in regard to man produced CO2 and global warming. I know that you don't agree and thats OK. Time will prove me right in the end I think. In the mean time we can agree to disagree.

No $hit Gary- science is not a static endeavor. Expecting the scientists to cater to your POV is even more antiscientific and illogical to those of us that review evidence and revise conclusions as well as mechanisms as the evidence is obtained.

As a scientist that caters to being able to separate the phenomena being looked at and misunderstood (no offense) by you, I strongly beg to differ and I implore you to set aside your rushing to conclusions before having a firm understanding of what it is you are concluding.

[GaryC 7]

Please re-read the article. It is pretty clear in stating the temporary nature of the natural phenomenon being observed. There are some points that you did not highlight that completely discredit your POV and are at the very heart of the nature of the observations.

Nah, I expected this. It's been obvious that the warming stopped several years ago. When it couldn't be ignored any longer I knew they had to address it. I also knew that they would come up with some excuse to avoid saying they were wrong. They just bought themselves another 10 years. I have said and I still maintain the Man Made GW is a myth. The earth gets warm and the earth cools off. We don't have anything to do with it. My guess is that 10 years from now they will come up with another excuse as to why the melt down hasn't occurred. This is nothing but a CYA by the scientists.

No need to get so defensive about your POV. I think I have explained it several times- you need to understand the difference between climate and weather to understand the observations and the time scales being made here.

I am not defensive. As I said I expected something like this for a while now. It's natural for the scientists to make excuses for why their models have been wrong and I didn't expect them to come right out and say they were wrong. They are, after all, human first and scientists second. I also expect that in the next few years to see more stories like this to come out, each one with a little more doubt about the role of man in our climate changes. I think that by the time their 8 year window of cooling passes you will see a majority of scientists converting to skeptics in regard to man produced CO2 and global warming. I know that you don't agree and thats OK. Time will prove me right in the end I think. In the mean time we can agree to disagree.

No $hit Gary- science is not a static endeavor. Expecting the scientists to cater to your POV is even more antiscientific and illogical to those of us that review evidence and revise conclusions as well as mechanisms as the evidence is obtained.

As a scientist that caters to being able to separate the phenomena being looked at and misunderstood (no offense) by you, I strongly beg to differ and I implore you to set aside your rushing to conclusions before having a firm understanding of what it is you are concluding.

I don't "expect" any scientist to cater to my POV. However, until recently the consensus was that global temps would rise in a more or less linear fashion as CO2 levels went up. They had their models and everyone seem sure that they were right. When those models turned out to be wrong because of factors they didn't take into account they are now modifying them. Good, that is what I would expect. All I have been saying is they STILL don't know all the facts. Even when they modify their models with this new data they still cannot say what is going to happen. I have a personal opinion. It's one you don't share. I am still going to maintain that despite their revisions they still don't have it right. Just watch what happens in the next 8 years. The change in the consensus will happen. CO2 isn't a pollutant.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

There really hasn't been any "science" that I have seen in the global warming debate....just a lot of yelling and the "pulling of data out of one's #######".

The Earth warms up.

The Earth cools off.

Get used to it.

True! However, I haven't read or heard any scientist mention what effects does the earth cooling have on the evironment...