.jpg)
A new study says Earth is experiencing a cooling trend, contradicting global warming claims
A new study, covered by Discovery News, has sent shockwaves through the environmental community with claims that global warming might be “on hold.” As if to add an exclamation point to the matter, Michael Reilly’s article comes one day after a global warming protest in D.C. was hit with a major snowstorm.
Reilly cites a new study that says global warming “may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.” Despite several decades’ worth of deafening (and dire) predictions from scientists and political activists alike, drastic climate change continues to be an unpleasant fiction. According to Reilly’s article:
“Earth’s climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.”
Instead, a groundbreaking new study conducted by Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee suggests that several different climate processes have aligned with one another, effectively “conspiring to chill the climate.” The study cites events in 1997 and 1998, when the Pacific Ocean warmed rapidly in a “super El Nino event,” which jolted the oceans and atmosphere into collusion.
“Cooling events since [the 1950s] had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one,” says Swanson. While greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased, the temperatures have not. In short, this fact has confounded global warming alarmists across the globe. The study by Swanson and Tsonis only helps to steal some of the “sky is falling” urgency from the claims of people like Dr. James Hansen, John Coleman, and others. There's an unmistakable rift growing between the claims that we're responsible for warming the planet and the mounting evidence that contradicts those claims. Still, as Reilly’s article states:
The discrepancy gets to the heart of one of the toughest problems in climate science -- identifying the difference between natural variability (like the occasional March snowstorm) from human-induced change.
As scientists continue to speculate what’s behind the mysterious cooling trend, Swanson posits that the trend might last as long as 30 years. However, Swanson seems to be playing it safe with remarks that rising greenhouse gases could, in the end, still haunt us. He warns that “when the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming.” The article also ends on an underdeveloped note of concern, with Swanson’s claim that “thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.”
Comments
Let's see you take polar ice and liquify it, that water seeps into the oceans, cooling the ocean and changing currents.
Then on the surface you continue to monitor extreme weather events, massive wildfires, droughts and the like, and say it has hit a roadbump.
I suppose you were right along with Bush saying Mission Accomplished.
Your story is what you want to believe, not what is actually happening.
Obama crashed the economy and is responsible for 911. There, I said it for you.
Maybe you should start measuring the places inside the earth that are warming instead of just relying on surface meaurements.
What do you mean we can't measure the temperature of the mantle?
Then how do you take the Earth's temperature? Do you stick a thermometer in your mouth or just hold it under your nose?
By the way, scientists know that there are periods of warming and cooling based on pretty regular peaks and valleys in the historical record.
They are not confounded, nor do they think cooling is mysterious, only bloggers seeking webhits use those words.
From the end of that same MSNBC article:
-----------------------
Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it's just a hiccup, and that humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.
"When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," Swanson said. "Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."
-----------------------
How hard is it for people to understand that more CO2 means more warming? Short-term fluctuations, a.k.a. WEATHER, say nothing about climate. The heat is building, and we'll see that manifest itself in different ways and at different rates, but it's still there.
i think your gay cause you think global warming is on hold. its happening so just deal with that fact.
Why is it when there is a cold winter, that is a temporary weather blip, but when you have a strong hurricane season, it is because of global warming? I am not saying that human-made global warming is false; however, I hardly see how 150 years of temperature increases is anymore insightful or meaningful than 30 years of cooling. We had a mini ice age before the warming trend. We were supposed to be warming. Is carbon dioxide contributing to this? Maybe, maybe not. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas but it also may be less than one percent of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. The bulk of evidence comes from computer climate models that cannot account for all environmental variables (computationally intractable with current computers). Empirically, it is unclear whether the warming is normal or abnormal. Some surface measurements show a large warming trends and others show a normal cyclical warming. The arctic cap is decreasing, but Antarctica ice volume is increasing.
The point is that global warming is not settled science, nor is it a hoax. The people who say it is settled are clearly not scientists. Throughout history, scientists have challenged previous thoughts and advanced them. It is the nature of science. Sure there are many scientists who believe in global warmning, but there are many that don't. And finding a really good scientific paper that shows that increasing carbon dioxide increases the temperature in our atmosphere in a meaningful way is non-existent currently. Until we achieve really abnormal warming/cooling trends or proof of this correlation between carbon dioxide and warming, it is hard to call this settled.
Antarctic ice has been recently determined to be losing the mass of the Greenland ice sheet annually.
Sorry you didn't keep up with the science, Steve. In the next comment, please eliminate your short history lessons, we all read the stuff you regurgitated into your comment about 25 years ago. I know it is news to you...
Earl, this is what I don't get about non-scientists (or poor scientists) like yourself. You don't like dialogue and you settle for attacks. If you read my comment, it was open to friendly dialogue about real subjects. Also, if you read articles not only in nature, but in science journals, and cross-checked facts you will see that there is a serious disinformation campaign. I am not sure about your ramblings about mantle temperature but I suppose you are unaware that satellite surface readings don't show consistent temperature increases. I suppose you would be surprised to learn that data that NASA has used has been altered to show larger than observed warming trends which was later invalidated. Just google temperature trends and you will see 100s of different temperature charts showing vsstly different things, many from reputable sources....why this disparity? And isn't that a helluva thing to rest your certainty on!
Another lesson: in science, you publish your results and models AND allow them to be reproducable. You don't do some of the sneaky things that NASA has been doing. And again, none of this invalidates Global Warming. BTW...there were fears of global cooling 25 years ago, as well as unnecessary fear mongering over the use of nuclear power. I remember the 80s well.
What I suggest is spending some time on google or a scientific journal database and actually find arguments that specifically link carbon dioxide increases to warming. What you will find is scant evidence with a lot of articles titled "This Bad Thing will Happen as Global Warming Continues"...but assuming that anthropogenic global warming is true.
All I know is anyone can watch for themselves LIVE daily images of the sensors and warming trends at
www.globalboiling.org
and last year I watched with my own eyes the north pole ice cap disappear so much that for the FIRST TIME SINCE HUMANS HAVE WALKED ON EARTH (a really, really long time) the north pole ice caps shrank so much it pulled away from ALL land on any side and BECAME AN ISLAND during the summer.
most important quotes from the author of the study:
"Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it's just a hiccup, and that humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.
"When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," Swanson said. "Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."
"
The IPCC, the environmentalist gold-standard, says Antarctica warming and ice-melt is inconsistent and doesn't show meaningful trends. There was a record Arctic melt last year, there has also been a record cool-down, or refreeze, this year in the Arctic. The reason why George and several others get concerned (and I don't blame you George) is that certain media outlets show the peak of every negative phenomenon. Sorta like how negative news is typically always reported with respect to crime. If you always see an Ocean wave rising, but never see when it crashes, you might be tempted to think that the wave keeps getting higher and higher.
Be careful of any website called globalboiling.org as well as something that says hannity.com. They are likely to be very partisan. I still see the infamous Al Gore hockey stick curve on websites even though the model used to compute it turns out to be grossly wrong and misleading. Regardless of what is causing any climate change, I think we should all be concerned that policy-makers (on both sides) are hijacking and steering science.
The ice caps should be smaller because we are warmer now then we were in the mid 1800s. People are afraid of things that are different. But the fact is there wasn't a lot of people trying to walk on earth up there 200 years ago. None of this speaks to anthropgenic global warming. And warming and cooling within the ranges we have seen so far is very normal. Maybe that will change...but so far nothing seems very different from the range of temperatures seen even in just the last 2000 years.
But doesn't anyone question these quotes?! Why does he think there will be an explosion of temperature in 30 years? According to the Al Gore models we should be much warmer than any natural cooling trend should cure. These types of quotes that George highlights are exactly the problem. A scientist may determine that a cooling period is likely, but because he is afraid of being viscertated by the irrational environmentalist lobby, he must put in quotes like this. What is the scientific purpose of saying something that vague. It is bad science. Even if it is true, I don't see how a scientist who seems to specialize in earth climate to a point where he can predict 30 years of cooling would also be a physicist/chemist who understands the interactions of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. His quotes explicitly support his general ignorance of the greenhouse effect.
I agree that one year does not a trend make, but now we have 10 years of no increase and recently a decrease in temperatures while all the time CO2 levels have been increasing. Trying to reconcile these data with global warming is like eating a steak to prove you are a vegetarian.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!