The April edition of Birmingham University's newsletter BUZZ incudes comment from climate researcher Chris Kidd that,
"Despite these warmer temperatures and recent news of further ice-shelf melting, global temperatures do appear to be cooling after reaching a peak in 1998.
Since then the temperatures steadied and have fallen over the past couple of years: in fact, Antarctica saw its greatest recorded extent of ice in 2007, unlike the dwindling Arctic sea ice.
As for the summer, seasonal forecasting is best left to computer models to get wrong, but it would seem that we could be in for an 'average' summer: cool and showery."
Let's hope Jo Abbess, the activist who recently insisted the BBC change a story that mentioned some global cooling, doesn't try and get this article changed!
-----------------------
Dr Chris Kidd is from the Climate and Atmospheric Research Group, in the School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, and he is not a climate skeptic.
At the time of writing the April Edition was not yet available online.
This Story was edited by Jennifer at 9.30am on April 10.
Ivan: what’s the point that you are trying to make about the NASA/Shindell et al. paper? The paper appears to show that solar effects were appreciable for determining the LIA (as we might expect) but much less important for the recent run-up of temperature than are effect due to GHGs. This is just what I suggested to you.
Louis Hissink:
“that single CO2 measuring outpost in the Pacific has produced data suggesting a deceleration of CO2 emissions, as measured in the atmosphere.”
“A deceleration”? You mean a decrease in the rate of increase? As happened in the early 1990s with Mauna Loa data? But not an absolute decrease? Such variations are usually related to annual variations in the oceanic and terrestrial carbon sinks.
Jennifer quoted a certain Chris Kidd who appears to be a senior lecturer at Birmingham University.
This is what he allegedly said:
"Despite these warmer temperatures and recent news of further ice-shelf melting, global temperatures do appear to be cooling after reaching a peak in 1998."
And this is what the World Meteorological organisation info note, dated 4th April, said:
"The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century. [...] “For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming,” World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature “anomalies”.
"La Niña modulates climate variability. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change in the present context is that the trend is still upwards; the global climate on an average is warming despite the temporary cooling brought about by La Niña."
And here is a quote from the summary of a NASA-report:
“The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the “El Niño of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.”
SJT
Oh really Gavin has??????
Where, please as I seem not find it.
The energy radiated from the Sun varies as the fourth power of it's temperature.This is 5000 raised to the power 4. Do those people who say the Sun is not the main influence in Global Warming have figures showing minute variation in this huge number Over the last 100 years? Are the el Nino la Nina events ignored because they are not understood They are the best factor for predicting weather.
"Perhaps you might explain why Cape Grimm is rarely quoted when some one wants to point to the global increase in atmospheric CO2 - almost every graph or plot seem use Mauno Loa as the benchmark.
All rather grim, really."
Gavin has supplied you with the answer. In the real world, however, it's all rather boring. Cape Grim agrees with ML. Surprise, surprise.
Internet nobodies, like gavin, might be attracted to the church of science.
All just so much atheistic denialism.
Ender, scientists dont "produce science" - unless it is the so called church of scient*ology (*dont want to attract undue llitigious activity)
Mr T - see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum
Let's make this clear. The length of a solar cycle is measured from minimum to minimum. The current solar cycle (SC23) is "officially" deemed to have begun in May 1996, and the previous solar cycle (SC22) is "officially" deemed to have ended in May 1996 - however the first regions of current cycle (SC23) polarity appeared in May 1995.
In the same way, the first sunspots of Cycle 20 were seen 13 months prior to solar minimum; for Cycle 21 it was 19 months; and for Cycle 22 the first spots occurred 18 months before minimum.
We've had the first spot in January - if the transition occurs in 12 months, then indeed you may be right about the month, but not the year.
You are of course entitled to your opinion - but with all due respect, IMHO you are wrong. Me thinks that: "those people who keep saying "Cycle 23 just won't end" " are quite right.
cheers
Oh this is all rather Grimm, isn't it, but try to find some easily locatable data from Cape Grimm, and it is difficult.
Perhaps why grim that is, Cape Grimm isn't relied on for AGW hysteria. Perhaps the data is showing and even greater reduction in atmospheric CO2 than that small blip in the Pacific Ocean.
Very grim indeed for the AGW crowd, to be sure.