Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING?

Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday.

The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.

Summers and winters will all be cooler than in recent years, and the changes will mean that global warming will be 'paused' or even reversed, it was claimed.

Cyclists ride through the snow in Richmond Park

Big chill: Scientists have claimed that the world has entered a 'cold mode' which could last three decades, a theory that challenges climate change

The predictions are based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

They are the work of respected climate scientists and not those routinely dismissed by environmentalists as 'global warming deniers'.

Some experts believe these cycles - and not human pollution - can explain all the major changes in world temperatures in the 20th century.

If true, the research challenges the science behind climate change theories, and calls into question the political measures to halt global warming.

According to some scientists, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.

It occurred because the world was in a 'warm mode', and would have happened regardless of mankind's rising carbon dioxide production.

A graphic explaining about the changes in our climate

And now oceanic cycles have switched to a 'cold mode', where data shows that the amount of Arctic summer sea ice has increased by more than a quarter since 2007.

The research has been carried out by eminent climate scientists, including Professor Mojib Latif. He is a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He and his colleagues predicted the cooling trend in a 2008 paper, and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva in September.

Working at the prestigious Leibniz Institute in Kiel University in Germany, he has developed methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft under the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

For Europe, the crucial factor is the temperature in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. He said such ocean cycles - known as multi-decadal oscillations or MDOs - could account for up to half of the rise in global warming in recent years.

Professor Latif said: 'A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th century was due to these cycles - as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. All this may well last two decades or longer.

'The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.'

Many meteorologists have blamed the current freeze on 'Arctic oscillation' - a weather pattern in which areas of high pressure have pushed the warming jetstream away from Britain. They have insisted this temporary change will have no effect on long-term warming patterns.

But another expert, Professor Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, said MDOs will continue to determine global temperatures.

He said: 'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather, and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st centuries. We have such a change now.'

4 Opinion(s):

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Well since I have followed the 'Global Warming' debate.. I have found that mostly it was the critics who called it the 'Global Warming'. The argument was essentially as i understood it that climates were changing, some places were getting very much hotter (allegedly poles, et al; for example drunken tree syndrome in russia where the tundra was melting far higher than usual, etc..); other places colder.

It was not so much 'global warming' but that the weather was going bef**&^d, with massive extremes occuring, rain where it did not rain, or rained much more, stronger storms, droughts, etc...

that is always how I have understood the climate change argument, at least from those who were stating it, without an agenda.

When you get to those with the agenda.. both sides are essentially using half truths and disinformation to sling mud at the other side, as a big little political mudfight, not too different from the mudfights on so many issues.

That was my understanding from what I had read...

Exzanian said...

If only this were as simple a problem as CFC's, then we would have more facts and be able to tackle it. It seems climate change is real, but goes on over vast periods of time, and then you also have to factor in natural planetery and sun cycles over even vaster periods (tens of thousands of years)
In any case, there are other excellent reasons for burning less fossil fuel, the most overiding one the simplest of all: We're running out of the stuff...Go nuclear I say...

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Nuclear will be okay for those who have already invested money into building their nuclear power stations with cheap oil.

But nuclear energy has always been somewhat subsidized by cheap oil, it has a very low EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested).

In fact some say it may be negative, i.e. be an energy sink.

Oil's EROI used to be 1:100; ie one barrel of oil's energy would produce 100 barrels of energy for the market. That ratio is now down to 1:10, generally, although different oil wells have different ratio's of course.

Once it gets down to 1:2 or so... it gets closer to pointless; because in a 1:2 economy, you would need 33% of all industrial activity focussed purely on providing the energy for the other 66% of the economy.

Allegedly most of the alternative energies are heavily subsidiseed by cheap oil, and if they were to be built totally with only -- say windpower -- or so, they would also be close to energy sinks.

That includes biofuel, ethanol, nuclear, at per current research. That is why alternative energy research is so important, because these could be improved, but not without research.

Anyway... that is my understanding of the peak oil and gas issue... simplified.. ;-)

Anonymous said...

I find it very ironic that at the time of the Copenhagen climate summit, the worst winter weather started hitting the earth. Almost like Mother Nature giving a shout out "I'm still in here idiots". Have to love it. Go Mother Nature!!