Cooler Climate Could Prevail in Europe and North America Next Decade: Is Global Warming Over? (UPDATED)
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 05. 1.08
Image courtesy of Richard Simmon/NASA
To put it succinctly: not a chance. Just because I know there are those who will gleefully point to this study as proof that global warming is all a big hoax (*cough* Senator James Inhofe *cough*), let me start off this post by quoting one of the study's authors, Noel Keenlyside: "We want to make very clear that we don't want to say that [anthropogenic] global warming is not here."
He followed up by noting that the cooling trend, if it does occur, will likely only be a baseline natural fluctuation -- one that will have no impact on the prevailing global warming trends. Now, to get back to the actual meat of this study, Keenlyside predicts that Europe and North America could soon experience a cooler climate due to natural variations in the North Atlantic's and tropical Pacific's ocean currents.
This decadal cooling could temporarily mask the effects of global warming, he said, though the longterm trend of anthropogenic emissions buildup still favor a move towards higher average temperatures. Similar natural oscillations in the oceans' currents have characterized the North Atlantic since the early 19th century, when records first began (which means they've probably been taking place for a much longer period).
Keenlyside and his colleagues believe a weakening of the global thermohaline circulation, or ocean conveyor belt, could be to blame for the coming cooling period. Indeed, because ocean currents help transport warm water around different regions of the world, some scientists fear global warming could disrupt -- if not shutdown completely (though that isn't likely) -- this conveyor belt by changing the waters' temperature and salinity.
As this and other studies have shown, what is critical to remember is that global warming, and the planet's atmospheric patterns as a whole, aren't static; as a result, we can expect to see more deviations from the norm over the coming decades. And, again, that's assuming Keenlyside's model predictions pan out, and we do see a noticeable cooling period. The overall trend, however, will likely remain the same: rising global temperatures and other warming-induced effects.
UPDATE: For a more accurate take on this study, head over to Climate Progress, where Joe Romm explains why most media outlets (including us, to a certain extent) got it wrong. Here's a brief, but informative, snippet (the whole thing is worth the read):
In fact, with the general caveat from the authors that the study as a whole should be viewed in a very preliminary fashion, and should not be used for year-by-year predictions, it is more accurate to say the Nature study is consistent with the following statements:* The “coming decade” (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on record, globally.
* The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors’ calculations began in 1960.
* The fast warming would likely begin early in the next decade — similar to the 2007 prediction by the Hadley Center in Science (see “Climate Forecast: Hot — and then Very Hot“).
* The mean North American temperature for the decade from 2005 to 2015 is projected to be slightly warmer than the actual average temperature of the decade from 1993 to 2003.
Via ::National Geographic News: Cooler Climate May Hit N. America, Europe Next Decade
(news website)
See also: ::The Latest from Skeptic Central: CEI Pushes Ad Arguing Global Warming Fix Would Devastate Developing Countries, ::Ocean Saltiness Provides Early Warning System for Climate Change
While I am doing what I can for global warming, etc, this makes me hopeful that we'll have *winter* here for once! I'm dying to see real snow instead of the ice and powder we get teased with...
The tragedy of this is that the main talking point over the past few years has been global warming, rather than the effects of pollution. A decade of cool temperatures
I wish people like Al Gore had chosen instead to go with increased cancer rates, high autism rates near coal power plants, death of wildlife and trees, etc. rather than global warming, and rather than just shifting to calling it "climate change." People are starting to treat responsible methodologies with disdain because global warming is taking on a mythical status.
My own thought is that Gore and his cronies should shift gears and call it "taking responsibility" (making old-school practices look irresponsible, which they are) or since he likes to present a Christian face at times, he could call it "good stewardship." Maybe those aren't catchy enough, and I suppose they're not fear-based enough, but back in college I took an advertising class, taught by a very successful account exec, and he would give failing grades for fear-based campaigns, explaining that if you have to use fear, your product isn't good enough. Al, if you can't do it without invoking fear, you need to go back to the drawing board.
Doesn't anyone realize that as the energy output of the Sun changes, so goes the climate of the Earth?
Are we to cherry pick only the science and studies that bolster our point of view? It certainly seems like it when it comes to your green movement.
It makes good sense healthwise, economically and socially to conserve energy and resources. "Man-made" warming is a hoax perpetrated by the likes of Gore and does nothing more than use scare tactics to bolster his self-importance (and wallet).
I believe, that average temperatures is going to increase, no matter the research.
I am sure, they haven't included many new resources of very extensive chemical and heat pollution in developing countries, cutting forests, increasing desert surface, decreasing ice surface, much increased methane emissions in permafrost, etc.
This research is very misleading and will make a great PR - Marketing damage to the environment of our planet, because it allows politicians to rely on fossil fuels and especially oil. (I am convinced, that the oil corporations support this research, unconditionally.
Great comment Regeya. It's also sad that scientists and others have to consider political correctness before they make any comment that even gives the appearance of be contrary to the popular concept of man caused global warming. Regardless of who may have bestowed mankind with the mantle of responsibility we should be "good stewards" of the resources that we have. We should protect children and others from poisoning. And we should n't use demagoguery and hyperbole to do it. That said, I'm gladdened to see major corporations embracing green initiatives and funding research in these areas.
Previous poster has a solid point. Fear seems to be all the rage these days. Fear of warming, fear of cooling, fear of no food, fear of terrorists. Good grief! Unfortunately, a calm case against pollution based on logic and reason won't sell advertising on the 24hr news cycle. Only a World Crisis can do that. It takes a World Crisis to win an Oscar and make a pile on a glorified powerpoint presentation. And you can't blame Al if a bunch of new money starts flowing into alt-energy companies into which he's invested, right?
A decade of cool temperatures
I completely agree with regeya. I, for one, am not entirely convinced that global warming isn't a sun cycle. I still do what I can to reduce my impact, but for different reasons... health concerns and ethical concerns. Why can't we protect the earth because it's the right thing to do, or have stringent product and chemical testing because it's ethical and good. Global warming or not, we still need to go to renewable resources, recylclables, and healthy products...
“Global warming” was an unfortunate choice of words. I live in Wisconsin, where we had one of the coldest, snowiest winters on record this year. Every time global warming came up on the news or in conversation, someone would inevitably point to the subzero temperatures outside and say “no way. I wish we had global warming!!” If this temporary cooling occurs, there is going to be no end to ignorant comments like that. People tend to assume that the weather in their own backyards is representative of the situation worldwide – we think that, if the temperature is so much colder here, then it couldn’t possibly be hot enough elsewhere to warm up the entire globe! It seems unnatural that we wouldn’t directly feel the warming effects.
This is why the slow switch of terminology and focus from “global warming” to “climate change” is vital. Those close-minded people who are seeing extremely cold or severe weather can more easily acknowledge that the climate is changing, in one way or another, for better or worse. They can’t deny that it’s been an especially unpleasant winter. They can’t deny that droughts are occurring more often in some places, floods more in others. And if they care to look into the causes of these weather patterns, they’re likely to find a few natural coincidences and a lot of human impacts. They’re likely to find out that the earth overall is warmer on their own terms, and then they’ll be more willing to accept it.
The claim that warming will resume is the alarmists' attempt to maintain their global warming fantasy in the face of a cooling world. It actually is possible for an oscillation of cold ocean surface water to mask global warming (where an active sun is raising the average temperature of the oceans), and it even happened a mere 60 years ago (between 1940 and 1960), but this is NOT what is happening now.
Instead, we have a very dangerous situation where the cooling effect of a fall off in solar activity is being compounded by cold Pacific and Atlantic oscillations. Warming effects incur negative feedbacks that make them self limiting. Not so with cooling effects, which regularly plunge the world into 100,000 year long ice ages, with the next one due any century now. We should be guarding against this very real danger by pumping out as much greenhouse gas as we can, tailored to patch the infrared “holes” in our greenhouse blanket. My post here.
the Global Conveyor current IS slowing down since 2005 and this is due to desalinization BECAUSE of polar ice melting into the sea its the Day After Tomorrow scenario how this potential temporary ice age will in any way "improve" the climate change situation is unlikely.
I concur with the majority voice that it is less a matter of why it is happening, and more a matter of how we go about changing our lifestyles in a respectable harmonic fashion.
There are linear thinkers and systemic thinkers. I tend to believe that global warming/cooling is a self correcting system loop. That does not mean I am going to pour oil in the rivers.
We are all gathered here for common goal and yet we divide ourselves among details.
Reeya's point is unfortunately not valid; global mean temperatures have been remarkably stable since life started - this is the heart of the Gaia hypothesis.
For those of you who want to contribute in someway to help keep our environment from deteriorating more than what it already has and all you have to do to realize that, is look at the smog.
Try air drying your clothes with a product called the Tibbe-Line, it's an easier more efficient way to do your laundry. The web site is www.tibbeline.com . Save time, space, money, energy, our environment and add longevity to your clothes. HANGERS ARE USED INSTEAD OF CLOTHESPINS AND YOU CAN HANG 21 PIECES OF CLOTHING IN THE SPACE OF 39"
Nice bit of advertising there Rose Marie (because it has very little to do with this particular story). I can do the exact same thing without spending $15 on a useless product. A product that spaces hangers out? Gimme a break. If this is environmentalism we're doomed.
Oh, and Rose Marie, if you're going to advertise to us using the comments section, at least disclose the fact that you work for the company.
When glaciers melt, they release colder water into the ocean, thus, the temorary cooling of the ocean (just my theory) But think about it, humanity has gone through one trillion barrels of oil since the 1800s and we are poised to go through another trillion in 30 years. Thats a million times a million. That isn't going to mess with air quality?
Read this post
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/02/nature-article-on-cooling-confuses-revkin-media-deniers-next-decade-may-see-rapid-warming/
Sustainability needs to become a sexier term than global warming. The ethanol fiasco, water shortages, and other near-term events are helping the cause.
www.ecounit.com
Scientists will be the first to say "We ain't perfect." New data happens. We will never know all things. The human spirit is a mystery as well. Don't bicker and don't be disheartened. We grow together still.
I googled "2007 warmest year on record" and "2007 coldest year on record" and got pages claiming scientific studies for both. This is really scary, Orwellian like.
People like the poster from Wisconsin will swear the world is warming when everything around them tells them the oposite!
The truth is that there is climate change, just not "Climate Change".
Andy Gates says climate has been remarkably stable since life started. Really? Does he mean his life? Life has been around for 3.7Billion years on earth, people for 200,000. The last ice age ended around 10-15000 years ago.
But even since Christ the earth has cooled, resulting in the great migration of Germanic and Step people. warmed, resulting in a global golden age and human expansion (see medieval warm period) and then cooled (see little ice age). So when the poster says we are coming out of an ice age maybe they mean the little ice age. (see also "Bond Event")
I am not sure what the climate will be like in the next centuary, but I do no it will be better for people if it is warm not cold.
I once a told a friend that I felt the Global Warming fiasco was all an overblowen myth and he reponded that even so it was still good for people to become concerned about the enviroment.
I think that any movement based on a lie is an evil movement and not the benifit of mankind. We need clear information to make clear decisions.