Global Warming or Global Cooling

[Palm Guy]

Hi Guys,

We're experiencing cooler temperatures, about 1-2 F cooler than average. I don't think its due to La Nina this year. This cooling has been over a period of about 2-3 years. Anybody else experiencing the same?

Cheers,

Mike

[Neofolis]

We just had a cooler than average October, almost 1°C below the 1961-90 average. It also included a day which had the lowest daytime high recorded in October for more than thirty years. In some places it was the second lowest daytime high for October on record. Overall this year looks like being the coolest year for 7-8 years, maybe more, unless November and December are particularly mild.

[MattyB]

From what I understand, which isn't much, global warming will produce cooler temps in some areas. No one knows really.

[osideterry]

We've had a string of yo-yo years, with cooler than average Winters and warmer than average Summers. It averages out I guess.

Our last El Niño was 2004-2005, and the one before that was 1997-98. A warmer, rainier winter sounds pretty good right now.

[Austinpalm]

Here in Central Texas, we had a very warm spring and summer until August when it finally started raining and cooled down to the 90s. We have since had slightly warmer than normal fall temps, but have had at least 1 record low (39F) for that date about 2 weeks ago. Last winter was generally considered to be slightly warmer than normal, however, we still set a few record lows for certain dates, however none of the records low were temperatures that caused me concern for my palms (below 25F).

I have read of a theory concerning global warming which indicated that rising temps in the arctic could lead to a cool down in the North Atlantic due to increased freshwater flow from melting glaciers which would minimize the warming effects of the Gulf Stream.

Just a theory, I am unaware of anything indicating this is taking place.

[steve 9atx]

Some folks, like this fellow http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623# have a different word for "global warming".

They call it weather.

And you can't pooh pooh this article because it comes from "The World's Greatest Newspaper"!

Steve

[_Keith]

Here in Louisiana we say we don't have seasons, we have weather. If you don't like it, wait a day or two and it will change.

Cooling or warming? Who knows? When someone can tell me reliably if it will rain 3 days from now, I will believe someone has a clue, as to whether or not it will rain 3 days from now that is.

Humans talking about whether the planet is warming or cooling in a period of a couple of hundred years is like a fly discussing a College Curriculum. This planet functions on 15,000 year cycles, not something the current population can relate to. Mankinds entire history of keeping weather records is not even equal to the blink of an eye in a lifetime.

Whew, glad I got that off my chest.

[Palm Guy]

Steve -great article. This is actually the reason I made this post. I hear of global warming all the time but I think we're actually on the brink of a global cooling period (I believe the big scare in the 70's was of global cooling also). I believe that normal and abnormal temperature variations have happened for years. But I also believe that humans do contribute to climate change to some degree(no pun intended).

Cutting down rainforests actually lead to higher temperatures. Not sure if the higher temperatures only rise in the immediate location the trees were felled(due to lack of shade) or if it contributes to a global rise in temperatures. But here is an article which shows evidence that in one area of Borneo where mass rainforest destruction contributed to a 5 F rise in temperatures in that region. As soon as the trees were replenished temperatures changed back to normal. http://www.orangutan.net/archives/46.

I've also heard theories of the gulf stream slowing down leading to cooler temperatures. Polar shift theories( I particularly like these - we can place some bets as to who will be on the equator after it happens! ).

Thanks all for your replies. Glad to know I'm not the only one!

[bubba]

Steve,Why does the truth ring between the lines of stories like David Bellamy.Why does the established disenstablishment have such great difficulty admitting errors.To err after all is to be Human?Is it not?

One other equally plausible discussion regarding climate change may be viewed in the book written in 1959 by Charles H.Hapgood titled "Earth's Shifting Crust".Hapgood's theory was that the crust of the earth is rather like the skin that forms around cold gravy,and can literally be pulled pulled around by great masses of ice at the poles.Before you laugh too hard,consider that this theory was arrived at before the discovery of the Tectonic Plates and had much more to do with attempting to explain the existence of ancient maps that reveal an ice free Antartica.Before laughing any harder,consider his points regarding sudden,inexplicable climatic revolutions,evidence for which he cites the great extinctions of the Siberian Mamoths found in 1901 frozen upright with spring plants such as buttercups in their stomachs. Shifts in the poles were discovered also.Also do not fail to take into account that the preface of this book was written by one Albert Einstein,who found the evidence compelling.

Most of all,however,consider the fact that the water temperature at the Palm Beach Inlet was 80F on Nov.7,2007 but only 78F on Nov.6,2008.

[SubTropicRay]

I've read global warming leads to greater and more sudden fluctuations in temperature.

[BS Man about Palms]

Ever since the global warming ballyhoo was announced, we've been cooler around here. I like the idea that whatever doesn't fit into the "warming" category, goes to "oh, that happens because of global warming too". Soon, I suspect the downslide of the economy will be linked to Global Warming also.

[Walt]

From what I read awhile back we've been in a cooling trend for the past 10 years. Further, the last two years we've had reduced global cyclone activity:

.... Using a 24-month running sum, we see that Northern Hemisphere ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) remains at historical lows. Moreover, there has only been 1 Category 5 typhoon (Jangmi) during the past year. This cyclone activity is consistent with continued colder conditions in the Pacific Ocean and the previous strong La Nina last spring...

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Speaking of my own unscientific personal experience of measuring my lowest wintertime temperatures over the past 11 winters (when I moved to inland south central Florida), I know that Archbold Biological Station in south Highlands County, Florida, tied their all-time low temperature of 13 degrees on 01/05/01 (radiational freeze). I recorded 22 degrees at my place, about 10 miles N.E. of Archbold, which stands as my lowest low temperature in 11 years.

Conversely, the El Nino winter of '97-'98 (my first winter here) was maybe cooler average wise, but not low temperature wise. I don't think I recorded less than 41 degrees that winter.

My low temperature for the winter of 2005-2006 was a radiational 27 degrees. For 2006-2007 it was a radiational 28 degrees. For 2007-2008 it was a windy 32 degrees.

This past October and early November is the coolest I recall this early going into winter. Archbold recorded a 35 degree low last week, I recorded 39 degrees (radiational). One day, don't recall which one, my daily high was only 65 degrees. That was a first for me in the 12 years living here. That is well below average for January! However, it was totally overcast/full gray cloudeness that day.

In conclusion, I can't conclude anything, nor do I logically expect to. It's academic anyway. There's nothing meaningful I can do about it.

[Exotic Life]

Last september was 0.7°C cooler then average, that was the first month since i've started my own records and i'm started on Januari 2007. But what e can see here... since 2000... almost every year was warmer then average so global warming is here for sure. Last october was a little too mild here, and how November is started at this moment it can be milder month also again.

What we seen here the last 2-3 years that we don't have got really winter tempetures anymore... sometimes we can get some freeze... but not any periods from 2-3 weeks with winter. The winters are mostly extremly mild and the summers are a little above normal...

Robbin

Edited November 7, 2008 by Exotic Life

[bubba]

Was it not Benjamin Franklin's idea in the American Revolution to monkey with the Gulfstream so as to reduce Great Britain to Siberia?

BS,The economic downturn is indeed directly correlated to Global Warming.

[oppalm]

not only is the economic downturn related to global warming so is the Kanas City Chiefs 1-7 record. After consultation with my economic team I have also come to the conclusion that global warming is killing my retirement savings (that and the fact that I bet on the Chiefs to win every game this year).

[John Case]

Most of the 'data' used by the global warming community seems to end in 2005. Since then, I understand that global sea temps have dropped.

In addition, global warming to me means that the globe is warming. If there are substantial areas that are cooling, does that not mean that we may be experiencing regional warming and cooling?

My take on this whole thing is that global warming is a political condition, not a climate condition; and that politics is local (I mean it that way, too).

[palmsOrl]

I have noticed it being a bit cooler in Orlando the last year or so. For years before that, it seemed temperatures always ran a couple degrees above normal on average. Within the last year, temperatures have been running at, or a bit below average. I believe it has to do with sunspot cycles more than man-made global warming. I am enjoying it though, not a fan of the heat (great for the palms though)!

-Michael

[Tyrone]

Oct 08 was 1C warmer than the long term average in Perth. As far as a global climate trend, this tells you nothing.

The outlook for 08/09 NW Oz cyclone season (NW Oz is the most cyclone active part of the planet) is above average cyclone activity with 6 or 7 cyclones compared with the long term average of 5, and at least one or two severe cyclone land falls. Thankfully this part of Oz is sparsely populated.

Tyrone

[bubba]

Kent,Clearly!

John,You nailed it!

[Hollywood Palms]

Los Angeles (down town) had it's warmest October ever, with an average day time temp of around 84 F. We've been fairly warm in the hills, never below 51 in the evening.

From December to the second week of January is the critical time for me. After January 15, I can start watering freely and in mid February, put out the first round of fertilizers and compost.

David

[Big Tex]

The weather here average in Houston for October:

2002 - 81.6°F

2003- 71.2 °F

2004- 76.0 °F

2005 - 69.9 °F

2006 - 72.1 °F

2007 - 71.8 °F

2008 - 69.6 °F

7 year average - 73.2°F so there is a difference of 3.6°F in 2008. So far though, November is quite a bit warmer (~6°F) than the past 7 years.

[steve 9atx]

A little tribute to the late Michael Crichton:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ou...ntalfuture.html

Steve

[Big Tex]

The weather here average in Houston for October:

2002 - 81.6°F

2003- 71.2 °F

2004- 76.0 °F

2005 - 69.9 °F

2006 - 72.1 °F

2007 - 71.8 °F

2008 - 69.6 °F

7 year average - 73.2°F so there is a difference of 3.6°F in 2008. So far though, November is quite a bit warmer (~6°F) than the past 7 years.

Here is the NOAA's prediction for November. SO far they are absolutely righ in the Houston area.

[bubba]

Steve,That Michael Crichton Article is the truth in a bottle!Dumbfounding and Thank you.

[koolthing78]

I was under the impression that the term "global warming" is no longer being used, other than by out-dated and misinformed reporters, and by climate change "deniers", who want to be able to have something to chalk up in their "win" column every time a significant cold event happens. "Climate change" is the term I've heard more recently by those in the know (or at least moreso than your average local news anchor), and for me that's a little bit harder to debunk. I mean, climate *does* change, as evidenced by the cycles of ice ages and warm periods, and more short-term and local fluctuations like the 80's (although yes, I know "climate" is usually considered 30 year averages (or more) by most sources). Now, whether or not it's man-made is a whole other story, and I could really give two flips. What scares me is the idea of running out of the non-renewable energy sources our culture is so dependant on without another plan fully at the ready for a smooth transition, and it seems irresponsible to keep placing the emphasis on proving or disproving the existence of climate change, and the extent of man's role in it, all at the expense of promoting conservation, discovery and innovation. Even if the climate stays exactly the same for the next 300 million years, the supply of oil and gas and coal won't. While it's wrong to engage in fear-mongering just to drive up gas prices and get people to conserve cause they think the world is otherwise going to end in 20 years, it's also not the best idea to keep emphasizing the notion that there's nothing to worry about. Because let's face it--people are largely selfish and near-sighted, and aren't willing to make any painful (but necessary) changes unless the threat is imminent (and it is, regardless of your personal conception of the geological timeline and what counts as "soon").

[John Case]

The scare tactic used by environmentalists looking for a grant is 'Sudden Climate Change'; that is currently defined as global warming immediately followed by an ice age. See? Global warming isn't scary enough to get government money, you need to make the situation really, really, scary.

I agree that the use of fossil fuels needs to be supplanted by and with alternatives, but that is another issue entirely but with the result being the same. Another grab for government money. If alternative fuels were economic, alternatives would not require government assistance. (Big oil shouldn't either). We are currently in a broken system, but extracting ourselves from it will be difficult and expensive, especially if we rely the government to 'help' us.

[Neofolis]

The switch to renewable fuels is not made easier by people, who don't consider the possible threats of fuel depletion. The government recently planned to build a wind farm fairly near here and over 90% of the local community complained saying they didn't want it built here, because it's ugly. I could understand more if they were complaining because it would have an impact of local wildlife, but to complain because it is not aesthetically pleasing, is ridiculous. I doubt these people's current fuel bills are aesthetically pleasing either and they are only going to get worse.

Renewable energy farms of whichever sort are going to be very expensive to deploy, but they are designed to minimize maintenance costs, so once they are in place, they will immediately start to pay for themselves. Countries that reach the point where they can produce more than enough renewable energy for their own needs are going to be in a very strong position as alternative sources become less economically viable.

I'm surprised the likes of BP and Esso aren't buying up huge areas of cheap land in the Sahara to build solar farms, etc. Governments in countries like Western Sahara that have large areas of land with little or no population or wildlife, but enormous renewable energy potential should be seeking outside investment, so that they can build their own energy farms. These are generally not very wealthy countries and solar could do for them what oil has done for some middle eastern nations.

Maybe these things are already happening, I think it is unlikely that with all of the potential money making available no-one is doing anything.

[John Case]

The switch to renewable fuels is not made easier by people, who don't consider the possible threats of fuel depletion. The government recently planned to build a wind farm fairly near here and over 90% of the local community complained saying they didn't want it built here, because it's ugly. I could understand more if they were complaining because it would have an impact of local wildlife, but to complain because it is not aesthetically pleasing, is ridiculous. I doubt these people's current fuel bills are aesthetically pleasing either and they are only going to get worse.

Renewable energy farms of whichever sort are going to be very expensive to deploy, but they are designed to minimize maintenance costs, so once they are in place, they will immediately start to pay for themselves. Countries that reach the point where they can produce more than enough renewable energy for their own needs are going to be in a very strong position as alternative sources become less economically viable.

I'm surprised the likes of BP and Esso aren't buying up huge areas of cheap land in the Sahara to build solar farms, etc. Governments in countries like Western Sahara that have large areas of land with little or no population or wildlife, but enormous renewable energy potential should be seeking outside investment, so that they can build their own energy farms. These are generally not very wealthy countries and solar could do for them what oil has done for some middle eastern nations.

Maybe these things are already happening, I think it is unlikely that with all of the potential money making available no-one is doing anything.

In California, we had a proposition to create alternative energy resources. This proposition was funded by T. Boone Pickens. The expected cost to the taxpayer was 3.5 billion dollars. Pickens spent 400 million dollars trying to get this thing passed. Pickens, who is a billionaire, could probably construct these things himself, but would rather have the taxpayers pay it because, simply, there is no real profit in this, regardless of whether it would help the environment at all. Thankfully, the voters defeated this silliness by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.

If you don't remember, when the first wind machines went up, there was no joy from the environmentalists. The impact of dead birds and insects was too great a price to pay, it was said, and many of the windfarm developments ended up in court and failed due to litigation costs. We have a few of them now, they are producing less than 2/10 of 1 percent of the total power in the state, at the further expense of dead birds, I guess.

The potential of money making in alternative energy is possible. Years ago, PG&E, the largest electric utility in the state, proposed a nuclear plant and had a long fight with enviromentalists, the State Public Utilities Commisision, and of course, politicians. All of these groups were so certain that nuclear power was not an economic investment, they allowed the plant to be built, knowing or course that it could not succeed. As a result, power generated at the Diablo Canyon allowed a special tariff for the plant. The plant was allowed only to charge for the power to recover the cost of construction until such time as the plant was paid off. After that, power generated from DC was unregulated and the PG&E was allowed to charge for the power from that plant at a much higher rate. The common knowledge was that the plant would never be paid off and the higher rates would never come to fruition.

Of course when belief is challenged with facts, surprises in the negative are experienced. The plant, once constructed and put into operation, was producing power almost for free, but the costs of production were much lower than hydro or fossil power. The plant continues to produce a significant amount of electricity at very low cost. No effect of radiation on the environment have been experienced. The costs of the plant were recovered very quickly.

So, what do we have here? We have a proven technology (which has advanced a long way since the 70's when DC was built) that operates profitably and with limited impact on the environment. It is reviled by many people who do not want nuclear power. These same people want solar, windpowered, biomass, or other means of generating power that are not profitable unless the government gives a stimulus (which is paid for by the taxpayer) and have a much greated impact on the environment.

We cannot conserve our way out of this. A growing economy requires that new economic energy sources be found. Nuclear works. Why do we have to reduce our standard of living, while other countries continue to improve? It is not a zero-sum game. We can do much better than we are doing.I am trying to quantify a solar array at my home to offset my large utility bill. Right now the numbers, even when the expected increasing costs of electricity are factored in, do not work. I will long dead and gone before I hit the break even point. If there is anyone who wants to donate to my project, please let me know. I'll create a not-for-profit organization that will be tax deductible for you. You will be able to be proud that you have helped in reducing the total carbon footprint. Wait a minute........I am sounding like the people pushing the proposition.

I have found that economics and science when done by looking at the facts will give us some real progress. But to work in this area, you must park your opinions at the door. Work only with the data; do not let your emotions cloud the picture. I have to fight this myself.

But I'm trying.

[Neofolis]

I appreciate what you are saying about cost recovery. With the higher fuel costs in the UK, it would still have taken a minimum of 8-10 years to recover the cost of any consumer wind/solar installation, based on prices 2 years ago. However, due to incredibly steep fuel price increases over the past two years, that has now come down a minimum of 3-4 years. These figues are based on maximum potential savings for someone with high usage and for most people it would be considerably longer, although the fact that people with lower fuel usage who generate more than their own needs can sell and excess back to the national grid, does help a little, although they get back a lot less than they would have to pay for the same fuel.

This kind of return on investment is much less of an issue for large fuel companies. Whilst their decisions have to make some business sense, they are not governed by the duration of capital return in the same way as an individual. The likes of Esso and BP are still going to want to be around in 50, 100 or 200 hundred years, so if they don't see a return in the short term, they are more than profitable enough to cover the costs and wait, especially with the help of government funding. If it takes 200 hundred years to pay for itself, it just means that they will be in a better position in 200 years.

Whilst nuclear power is extremely efficient and technology improvements have reduced the amount of waste produced, disposal of that waste still has an environmental impact.

[steve 9atx]

All I know is that it's very difficult to figure out if the finders of fact keep putting their faith

in front of our facts. By this time, y'all know my solution....Public caning, Singapore-style.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...1/16/do1610.xml

Steve

[amazondk]

I always enjoy these threads. Here in Brazil it seems that everything from wars between drug dealers in Rio de Janeiro, to cooler than usual temperatures in Amazonia, and even to the erratic behaviour of corrupt politicians is linked to global warming. In Manaus this year has been cooler than last. The night time temperatures never change much, 22 to 24 C, but in the hottest month, September I think I only saw one day around 40 C. Most of the time the temperature stayed from 32 C to 34 C in the daytime. And, many times even under 30 C. The rains started early this year as well and the forecast for the next few months is higher than normal percipitation. This is said to be caused by the La Niña currently under way. I have yet to figure out what could be done to mitigate climate change in any direction. But, that does not mean we should not develop alternative energy sources and attempt to live on our planet with a ligher foot print.

dk

[Derekjp]

I remember when An Inconvenient Truth came out. I believed in man-made global warming then with all my heart, but I've read more from different viewpoints and now I've changed my tune. I now actually don't believe in "significant" man-made global warming. Sure, we have some impact on climate, but its insignificant compared to what Mother Nature is responsible for. There's always been cooling and warming of the earth. I actually think we're headed back into a mini ice age again, but oh well...

Ask yourself this question though….

If you were going to be wrong, which would you rather be wrong on, global cooling or warming? Which would be more devastating to the world?

Here's a good article I found which describes how I feel about global warming

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/081104/issues01.html?.v=1

[palmsOrl]

Ditto to everything you said Derek. I was completely sold on global warming until 10 or so months ago, now I think we are having only minimal effects on climate overall. Looks like we're in for a cold winter this year, and my adonidia has gotten too big to haul into the greenhouse. Maybe I should start growing maples!

[amazondk]

This site I found has some interesting information. I personlly think that global cooling is inevitable and that we are still in an interglacial period. And, that global cooling will be a lot worse to deal with for most of the planet.

dk

Ice Age Now

[Neofolis]

As humans don't know everything that causes warming and cooling cycles or how much effect each factor has, how can they even hope to discern what impact human activity is or isn't having. It's just impossible, my guess is that we are having an effect, but I don't know how much or whether we are contributing to heating or cooling and I can't see how anyone could be any more specific than that. What is frustrating is that people keep saying that this statistic is causing this statistic, when the people quoting said statistics are speculating and calling it fact.