Subscription Center
Feb 12, 2009 09:05 AM | 19
All of the snow and chilly temps this winter almost convinced us that global warming isn't happening, after all. Reality check: recent climate data shows that it's still hotter than it used to be.
The planet's average temperature was 57.9 degrees Fahrenheit (14.4 degrees Celsius) last year, making it the eighth warmest year on record since 1880, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). But your goose bumps weren’t deceiving you: 2008 was also the coldest year since the beginning of the decade, according to data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. (Hat tip to Ars Technica for alerting us to this info in their analysis of climate trends yesterday.)
Global warming is responsible for the overall upward temperature trend, and any snow outside our window shouldn’t convince us that Earth has stopped heating up, says Richard Heim, an NCDC meteorologist. "Most of the top 10 warmest years have happened in the last decade and a half," Heim tells ScientificAmerican.com. "Global warming does not mean every year will be warmer than the previous year. Global warming means there's an increasing frequency of warmer temperatures and a decreasing frequency of cooler temperatures, and that’s definitely what we're seeing."
So how to explain the relatively colder winters we've had in the latter half of this decade? Goddard attributes them to La Niña, a cyclical pattern of cold sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. La Niña in the first half of 2008, followed by a neutral period in the latter half, likely had something to do with it, Heim says, but adds that global warming is about long-term, rising temperature trends over time. "It's kind of like a drunk driver," Heim says. "The car is weaving back and forth, but it's still progressing forward."
View towards Back Bay, Boston, January 2009 by essygie via Flickr
Tags:
climate change,
global warming
More News Blog:
Next: Indonesia quakes trigger tsunami warning
Previous: Space crash: Commercial and Russian satellites collide in orbit
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
19 Comments
Add CommentI see; cold weather doesn't mean that AGW is not real, but warm weather is evidence that AGW is real. I'm beginning to see a pattern here...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCold "local" weather doesn't mean that AGW is not real but a warmer "global" temperature may be evidence that AGW is real. Where I live we never see the thermometer raise over 0 celcius during winter and it's been over it all week. What happens in the US doens't represent the global trend. That's why where I live people tend to use the term 'climate changes' instead of global warming. It confuses people a bit less.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo Shoshin, a single cold year doesn't mean that the overall trend isn't upward. Here's a simple example, my daughter's overall GPA has been slipping over the last t wo years to a B-, despite the fact that she got an A in Art class this semester......Make sense now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are also due for the next ice age, don't forget. Maybe someone could get a Nobel Prize for predicting that, too. And, maybe scientific magazines could not publish wild guesses just to boost sales.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin, you shot yourself in the foot again. Just like last time when you boasted an article that talked about a few towns have 1 day of a record low. This doesn't mean anything, you are ignoring the trend to give credit to an instance. That isn't what AGW is about, it does not predict anything about any given temperature at any given time. It is about trends over time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjjdawsonn has a great point, we ARE due for an ice age. We cannot forget this, and we cannot say just because there is an ice age near that AGW can't possibly be happening. If anything it is only confusing people because of temperatures fluctuations.
In _Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum_ retired paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman argues that we indeed should be going into another ice age. His thesis is that we started to warm the globe many, many centuries before the industrial era. His book is well worth reading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read a lot of evidence here of just how poor science education is, when people post comments that make it abundantly clear that they are unable to differentiate a local/short-term weather event from long-term climate trends, and all the while ignore the basic science behind climate change: the continued accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and their net-effect on the thermal balance of the earth's climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSaying that 2008 was the 8th warmest year is hard to prove when satellitte data shows 2008 on par with 1979 and the 20th coldest in 29 years. I do not believe GISS data, way too much fudging by James Hansen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is the problem. The only global temperature data we have started in 1979. At present there is no increase from 1979. We cannot rely on land based measurements, stations have dropped out, stations have been moved and so on.
I will have to say that yes, people on here are evidence of a poor scientific education. The theory that C02 causes the plant to warm is an unproven theory and there is no data behind it. The fact that the stratosphere is cooler than the land proves that the C02 theory is false but yet, people still believe it. The fact that these people keep saying greenhouse gases is another clue. You don't know which one you are talking about?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI second Eve's remarks re: scientific education in this country. I would also hasten to add that anytime anyone uses the word "consensus" to support their opinion on AGW, that person immediately invalidate his or her ability to discuss any scientific matter. Consensus is a democratic device useful in governing, politics and business. It has very little practical application in science. Unlike a representative democracy, it does not matter one wit whether thousands of people disagree with you. If the data is on your side, in true science, you hold the correct position. The nonsense of "consensus" must end if science is to reign.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEve, where on earth did you "study" science? No data supporting carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas? Try this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisftp://cdiac.ornl.gov/pub/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
or this:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat
As for the stratosphere being cooler than the land (don't you mean troposphere?) do you contend it should be warmer?
Seriously, what's your expertise in this? Do you have any scientific training or experience at all? Or do you just listen to Rush and Sean and Glen?
JB13 - I would guess you have little experience in science either. Concensus is an important consideration in any human endeavor and science - a distinctly collaborative effort - is no exception. Yeah, Einstein was right and classical physicists were wrong about relativity; but the number of brilliant rebels like him is small.
What is it about the SciAm blog that it attracts so many people who don't know what they're talking about -- and evidently don't care?
Ahil, I sudied science at University, where did you study? The fact that C02 levels were higher in 1942 than now, shows that C02 follows temperature. The fact that it has been cooling for 10 years with rising Co2 levels shows that temperature does not follow C02.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEach possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot.
boys and girls do somebody knows for a fact who's responsible for the last ice age meltdown? this time we know humans, but what about the last one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismaybe dinosaurs far to much and thats what caused the last
global warming.
I'm cold. Will someone turn up the temperature, please?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure I want "science to reign", I live in Germany, and not so long ago, scientists were running around measuring heads and dispensing claptrap in support of some very unethical fellows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the climate change discussion, however, more and more evidence is piling up on the side of the side of the manmade GW crowd, and that should get enough people at least concerned. The opponents, for their part, are merely cherrypicking and ranting against people like Al Gore, and I suspect that their supporters in the media are simply motivated by politics. And the pols, for their part, are motivated by money, lobbies, etc...
I, personally, remember aybout 40 years ago practzicing skiing from the roof of the house where my family would stay in the Austrian Alps. Every year, there was snow beyond measure. Hasn't been that way for the past 20 years or so.
A cold spell may not mean the end of global warming but 3 winters in a row with 2 cold summers in between does. Particularily when C02 is rising. This is a great example on just how much C02 warms the planet. The Chinese are really impressed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure the temperatures are warmer than they were in the mid 19th century, but the alleged scientists are forgetting to mention that the mid 19th century was an unusualy cold time frame for the past millinia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure the current temperatures are higher than the mid 19th century, but what scientists fail to mention is that the mid 19th century temperatures were unusualy cooler than the average temperatures over the past millinia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think what eve was getting at is the fact that their are equally plausible papers showing other potential causes for the alleged current warming trend. First of all the current warming trend is always compared to the mid 19th century which was an unusually cool time frame in the past thousand years. Secondly, take the debate on relativity from the early 20th century. That debate lasted 75 years before APS declared it a law and even now their are portions of it that do not line up with quantum mechanics. You can not simply publish one paper and say the debate is over as is happening in this debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this