The coming ice age?

[2020hindsight]

NASA continues to a summary :-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Summary
The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense.

In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.

"assertions of "global warming has stopped" exposed as nonsense"

have a look at the graph of solar irradiance - currently at a low, will peak in about 2011-2012.
- maybe now you realise why I offered a $5 bet that 2011 would be hotter than 2007.

 

[Smurf1976]

Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists

One thing I've certainly been thinking is that, in a scenario very familiar to share traders, the whole global warming thing does seem to have undergone a parabolic rise and possible blow off top in the past year or so. That it came amidst falling temperatures does reek of a desperate "now or never" stance being taken.

IMO 10 years from now the issue will be largely ignored no matter what the evidence or science. Oil shortages will be the focus then and that one is real.

As for the Greens, they're busy organising a 25 years later party in honour of their "greatest moment" aka saving the Franklin. Fair enough, but there's a limit to how long they can keep flogging that one. Time to achieve something else, preferably in a democratic manner without frightening small children.

 

[explod]

Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists

One thing I've certainly been thinking is that, in a scenario very familiar to share traders, the whole global warming thing does seem to have undergone a parabolic rise and possible blow off top in the past year or so. That it came amidst falling temperatures does reek of a desperate "now or never" stance being taken.

IMO 10 years from now the issue will be largely ignored no matter what the science. Oil shortages will be the focus then and that one is real.

Maybe, but you cant eat oil. The rice problem due to drought is not looking the best, if it continues then in 10 years time perhaps our hunger will make us forget about oil.

 

[Plasmo]

Global warming true believers have spent the last few years denying that sunspots affected global temperature, because admitting this fact would undermine all the "models" attributing historic temperature rises to CO2.

It isn't possible to pin the recent low temperatures on sunspots without also pinning historical rises in temperature to the same cause.

You can't have your cake and eat it to, attributing all falls in temperature to sunspots, and all rises in temperature to CO2.

 

[Smurf1976]

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 4, 2006; Page A03

Heat waves like those that have scorched Europe and the United States in recent weeks are becoming more frequent because of global warming, say scientists who have studied decades of weather records and computer models of past, present and future climate.

While it is impossible to attribute any one weather event to climate change, several recent studies suggest that human-generated emissions of heat-trapping gases have produced both higher overall temperatures and greater weather variability, which raise the odds of longer, more intense heat waves.

Waynel it would be good if you could quote the NASA reports

Ground based thermometers near cities or industry are essentially useless due to localised effects.

If I go across the river to the zinc works (Hobart) then I'm sure it's going to be a bit warmer there with 130,000 kilowatts, various gas burners and a couple of great big roasters (which are constantly cooled so they don't melt) running 24/7.

And if I stand in central Melbourne then it's a fact that it's warmer than the outer suburbs which are themselves warmer than rural Victoria.

So taking temperature measurements in Melbourne, the Latrobe Valley, Sydney, London, New York or any other place that creates heat is guaranteed to stuff things up. And guess where most ground based thermometers are? Yep, right where people live and create heat.

 

[Julia]

It seems there is presently no conclusive evidence about global warming or cooling. We might all be going to fry or alternatively freeze to death.
That is, if we don't starve in the meantime.

What is interesting to me the way human beings in large numbers so readily attach ourselves to any one of various doomsday scenarios with such vigour.
Why do we do this? Is there something in our DNA which dictates we have to be worried about something?

We are told there is an epidemic of depression/anxiety. Prescriptions of anti depressants and anxiolytics bear this out. Are we all worried about the latest disaster befalling the planet, either in a macro sense (actual climate change) or the micro fall out (increased electricity bills and other expenses which affect us on a personal basis)?

Are those of us engaging in this discussion here on ASF typical of the general population? Or do Mr and Mrs Average really only worry about what they want to watch on television tonight and who will win the footy?

I guess what I'm wondering is how much time and emotional effort we are all expending on actually worrying about global stuff (other than financially related markets of course). Is it just the time it takes to type out a post on this thread, or are members seriously thinking about it for much of their time?

For myself, I'm just pretty sick of hearing about it all, and tend to sigh when yet another news item comes on the radio, or is printed in the paper, and flick over to something else. Anything which smacks of fanaticism just turns me right off.

I'd be interested in others' perceptions on this rather messily proposed question.

 

[Smurf1976]

Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists

Maybe, but you cant eat oil. The rice problem due to drought is not looking the best, if it continues then in 10 years time perhaps our hunger will make us forget about oil.

Possible. But industrial scale farming is simply a means of converting oil, gas and a bit of electricity into something humans can eat. If you look at the total energy input to a meal on your table then actual crop growing is very much in the minority. No oil = no food, at least not enough for 6 billion people.

 

[Smurf1976]

Are those of us engaging in this discussion here on ASF typical of the general population? Or do Mr and Mrs Average really only worry about what they want to watch on television tonight and who will win the footy?

I guess what I'm wondering is how much time and emotional effort we are all expending on actually worrying about global stuff (other than financially related markets of course). Is it just the time it takes to type out a post on this thread, or are members seriously thinking about it for much of their time?

I know of very few people that don't view global warming as 100% proven fact. Those that don't take this view tend to be the type that are into alternative medicines, work out at gyms and are generally not big followers of mainstream news media. Also those with some reason, such as employment or an interest in science, to have thoroughly investigated the issue. Other than that small bunch, the rest take it as fact beyond question.

As for related issues, I'd estimate that decent knowledge of the oil supply situation is in the order of 1 - 2% of the adult population but rising. For the food situation / biofuels I'd say that less than 0.1% have any real comprehension of the math that makes it so unworkable. Those are just my estimates however.

Overall public comprehension of scientific, engineering etc matters is sharply declining in my opinion. That comes down to a media that just doesn't publish anything requiring much intelligence or knowledge to understand. Hence I stopped buying papers.

 

[explod]

Global warming true believers have spent the last few years denying that sunspots affected global temperature, because admitting this fact would undermine all the "models" attributing historic temperature rises to CO2.

It isn't possible to pin the recent low temperatures on sunspots without also pinning historical rises in temperature to the same cause.

You can't have your cake and eat it to, attributing all falls in temperature to sunspots, and all rises in temperature to CO2.

Not necessarily correct. It is all shades of grey. What cannot be disputed is that we do have some dramatic weather chnages.

It is well contended that with global warming the heat creates increased cloud cover at times which increases cold snaps and some winters.

Increased juxtapositions of hot and cold air make for stronger winds, storms, cyclones ans twisters.

And it is all so complex that in fact someone will come along and blow what I say out of the water.

To be catigoric on this subject is to delude oursleves.

 

[The Once-ler]

Re: comming ice age. canberra scientists

Possible. But industrial scale farming is simply a means of converting oil, gas and a bit of electricity into something humans can eat. If you look at the total energy input to a meal on your table then actual crop growing is very much in the minority. No oil = no food, at least not enough for 6 billion people.

Your exactly right there smurf.

Peak oil is a peak food issue. But the biggest issue right now is the rising cost of food and this is directly linked to the rising cost of oil.

Of course food can be grown without oil based industrialised methods. But the yields are far lower and there is not enough natural nutrients to supply food to 2 billion people let alone 6.5 billion growing to 9 billion.

We are stuck with industrial oil based agriculture, so that means we are in deap $hit in the years to come.



Put a wall around Africa, and increase our coastal military power. The West will be OK as long as they can keep out the millions of refugees.

 

[metric]

here is an newsweek article from 1975 that wasnt tainted by todays politisised GW 'agenda'.

you should go to link and see graph etc..

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age

The Cooling World
By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production ”” with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas ”” parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia ”” where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree ”” a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras ”” and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 ”” years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases ”” all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.”

Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Lest we forget just how wrong the climate experts can be.

It’s funny isn’t it?

Everyone complains about the weather, but only liberals try to legislate it.

 

[2020hindsight]

1.Global warming true believers have spent the last few years denying that sunspots affected global temperature, because admitting this fact would undermine all the "models" attributing

2.......historic temperature rises to CO2.

3.It isn't possible to pin the recent low temperatures on sunspots without also pinning historical rises in temperature to the same cause.

4.You can't have your cake and eat it to, attributing all falls in temperature to sunspots, and all rises in temperature to CO2.

1.No, anyone who has read a paragraph or two about this will know that the sun affects the earth's temperature. And no-one has “spent the last few years denying this” (except the no-hopers I guess). The question becomes, what about the excessive increase in temperature that cannot be (almost certainly – like 95% + certain) explained by natural phenomena (sun, atmospheric/volcanic dust, etc).

2.At least you concede historic rises of temperature, which is more than every second post around here is prepared to do.

3.?? Of course it's possible to expect a trend towards some recent slowing of temperature rise (or even lower average temperatures – assuming that has happened – which NASA suggests hasn't) when there is less sunspot activity. Incidentally, when sunspots peak, - eg in 2011 - so too will the temperature of the sun's radiation. So we should be talking dip in the temperature at the moment.

4.?? Rises and falls in temperature have been due to a combination of sun and CO2 (and other).

5.No one's denying that climate like the weather, or temperature is chaotic. The other thing , I notice that NASA in the recent article I posted back there talks about the 5-year-averaged temperature, which helps reduce the fluctuations. And the temperature increase in not a monochromatic scale here – we're not slowly playing a scale on the piano. The earth's temperature is more like a beginner kid trying to play a scale on a trumpet – and ending up with what could loosely be described as a melody slowly working its way up the scale. But the general trend is higher temperatures.

 

[Plasmo]

You will note that solar activity has over the last 300 years progressed to historical highs, especially since 1950 where it has held at a pretty constant level of "extremely high". It has been like turning the temperature controls up on the oven. It takes the oven a while to heat up, but heat up it does.

"Climate change models" universally neglect sunspot activity as a factor in climate change, attributing it to CO2 instead.

Now over the last year or so, someone turned the oven off. The earth is returning to the ambient temperature, and quite fast. Maybe it'll get turned back on soon, maybe it won't. Maybe it'll come back on stronger than before, maybe weaker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png

anyone who has read a paragraph or two about this will know that the sun affects the earth's temperature

Show me one report on climate change that considers the impact of sunspots. The IPCC report totally neglects this issue, attributing every part of temperature change that could be solar to CO2 instead.

I would say that if climate change models accounted for solar activity, this would wipe out 90% of the impact of CO2.

 

[metric]

youve goota watch this youtube video. part 1 of 4. i doubt you will believe the rubbish that is GW after this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

the other 3 are at link..

 

[So_Cynical]

I cant believe we have 3 pages of an ice age thread and no mention of the
North Atlantic conveyor and its predicted demise....thus new ice age.

But of course its all nonsense and will never happen...i know this
because i read it on an internet forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

 

[2020hindsight]

... Show me one report on climate change that considers the impact of sunspots.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Sunspot trouble
So what role, if any, have solar fluctuations had in recent temperature changes? While we can work out how Earth's orbit has changed going back many millions of years, we have no first-hand record of the changes in solar output associated with sunspots before the 20th century.

It is true that sunspot records go back to the 17th century, but sunspots actually block the Sun's radiation. It is the smaller bright spots (faculae) that increase the Sun's output and these were not recorded until more recently. The correlation between sunspots and bright faculae is not perfect, so estimates of solar activity based on sunspot records may be out by as much as 30%.

The other method of working out past solar activity is to measure levels of carbon-14 and beryllium-10 in tree rings and ice cores. These isotopes are formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, and higher sunspot activity is associated with increases in the solar wind that deflect more galactic cosmic rays away from Earth. Yet again, though, the correlation is not perfect. What is more, recent evidence suggests that the deposition of beryllium-10 can be affected by climate changes, making it even less reliable as a measure of past solar activity.

Recent rises
Despite these problems, most studies suggest that before the industrial age, there was a good correlation between natural “forcings" – solar fluctuations and other factors such as the dust ejected by volcanoes – and average global temperatures. Solar forcing may have been largely responsible for warming in the late 19th and early 20th century, levelling off during the mid-century cooling (see Global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980).

The 2007 IPCC report halved the maximum likely influence of solar forcing on warming over the past 250 years from 40% to 20%. This was based on a reanalysis of the likely changes in solar forcing since the 17th century.

But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).

Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .

Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.

gee Plasmo - you claim that the IPCC didn't mention solar activity
How hard did you try before you made that incredible claim ?
I mean - here's what happens when you go to wikipedia .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

Factors that warm or cool the planet

AR4 describes warming and cooling effects on the planet in terms of radiative forcing ”” the rate of change of energy in the system, measured as power per unit area (in SI units, W/m ²). The report shows in detail the individual warming contributions (positive forcing) of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, other human warming factors, and the warming effects of changes in solar activity. Also shown are the cooling effects (negative forcing) of aerosols, land-use changes, and other human activities. All values are shown as a change from pre-industrial conditions.

Total radiative forcing from the sum of all human activities is a warming force of about +1.6 watts/m ²
Radiative forcing from an increase of solar intensity since 1750 is about +0.12 watts/m ²
Radiative forcing from carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide combined is very likely (>90%) increasing more quickly during the current era (1750-present) than at any other time in the last 10,000 years.

 

[2020hindsight]

I cant believe we have 3 pages of an ice age thread and no mention of the North Atlantic conveyor and its predicted demise....thus new ice age.

SoCyn - you are obviously talking ONLY about Europe right?
I mean, the demise of the Gulf Stream means that the Gulf of Mexico gets much hotter yes?

The Gulf Stream is discussed as one of the topics (labelled myths) here ..

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11838

In fact that article claims that "Few scientists think there will be a rapid shutdown of circulation. Most ocean models predict no more than a slowdown, probably towards the end of the century. "

I wouldn't have a clue. But your point is the very first post I made on the "Global Cooling " thread - Seems it's unlikely. Certainly UK and Europe is doing much much more towards reducing CO2 that Aus is - DESPITE the fact that they (allegedly ) have less to lose

Climate myths: Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

While the rest of Earth swelters, might Europe and parts of North America freeze? This scenario was always unlikely, and the latest findings largely rule it out.

Europe and parts of North America are kept milder than other northerly parts by warm water flowing north from the Caribbean in an ocean current called the North Atlantic Drift. If climate change broke this heating system, European temperatures could drop by up to 5 °C or more within decades.

Some have even talked of a new ice age, of tundra spreading across the continent, while the film The Day After Tomorrow depicted the Earth plunging into a super ice age within weeks (see Scientists stirred to ridicule ice age claims).

Well, global warming certainly could disturb ocean currents. They are largely driven by the sinking of cold, salty water in the Arctic, but melting glaciers and swollen rivers are now pouring more fresh water into the surface of the Arctic ocean than before. Fresh water is less dense than salty, so it weakens this "pump". Enough could hinder ocean circulation, or even cut it off, as may have happened in the past.

In 2005, climatologists were shocked by evidence that it was already happening. A team of oceanographers led by Harry Bryden of Southampton University, UK, claimed there was a 30% reduction in the vital Atlantic current. But subsequent measurements by the team show no clear trend.

Few scientists think there will be a rapid shutdown of circulation. Most ocean models predict no more than a slowdown, probably towards the end of the century. This could slow or even reverse some of the warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, which might even be welcome in an overheated Europe, but the continent is not likely to get colder than it is at present.

A slowdown in circulation would affect many parts of the world by disrupting global rainfall patterns. But these effects will be insignificant compared with the much greater changes global warming will cause

see also https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=244788&highlight=scientist#post244788

Here are the other alleged myths...

There is also a guide to assessing the evidence. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.

Can we trust the science?
• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

Is the sun to blame?
• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• It’s all down to cosmic rays

Does CO2 cause warming?
• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

What happened in the past?
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
• It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
• We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

What is happening now?
• Mars and Pluto are warming too
• Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• Polar bear numbers are increasing
• The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
• The oceans are cooling

What is going to happen?
• Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
• Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

Why should I worry?
• It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• We can't do anything about climate change

 

[2020hindsight]

...North Atlantic conveyor and its predicted demise....thus new ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

You're right - some brilliant articles out there
sheesh - allegedly (??) it pretty much stopped for 10 days back in 2004 (believe it or not).

There is some speculation that global warming could decrease or shutdown thermohaline circulation and therefore reduce the North Atlantic Drift. The timescale that this might happen in is unclear; estimates range from a few decades to a few hundred years[1]. This could trigger localised cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling (or lesser warming) in that region, particularly affecting areas that are warmed by the North Atlantic Drift, such as Scandinavia and Great Britain.[7] The chances of this occurring are unclear.[8]

At present, most available data show that Gulf Stream flow was stable over the past 40 years.[9] One report, based on a snapshot survey, suggested that the deep return flow has weakened[10] by 30% since 1957, which would imply a weakening in the North Atlantic Deep Water production.[11] However, this should have caused a temperature drop of several degrees in northwest Europe, but instead temperatures have tended to increase.

It was later discovered, using the first cross-Atlantic array of moored current meters, that variations within one year were just as large.[12]

It has been reported by several news media[13][14] in late 2006 that in november 2004 the gulf stream stopped entirely for ten days. At least part of the apparent weakening of the Gulf Stream (if real) may be cyclical and connected to recent positive values of North Atlantic Oscillation.[15] Recent research[16] shows that Gulf Stream volume transport during the Little Ice Age was ten percent weaker than today’s, implying that diminished oceanic heat transport may have contributed to the 16th- to the mid-19th-century cooling in the North Atlantic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/oct/27/science.climatechange

Researchers are not sure yet what to make of the 10-day hiatus. "We'd never seen anything like that before and we don't understand it. We didn't know it could happen," said Harry Bryden, at the National Oceanography Centre, in Southampton, who presented the findings to a conference in Birmingham on rapid climate change.

Is it the first sign that the current is stuttering to a halt? "I want to know more before I say that," Professor Bryden said.

Lloyd Keigwin, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts, in the US, described the temporary shutdown as "the most abrupt change in the whole [climate] record".

Prof Bryden's group stunned climate researchers last year with data suggesting that the flow rate of the Atlantic circulation had dropped by about 6m tonnes of water a second from 1957 to 1998. If the current remained that weak, he predicted, it would lead to a 1C drop in the UK in the next decade. A complete shutdown would lead to a 4C-6C cooling over 20 years.

The study prompted the UK's Natural Environment Research Council to set up an array of 16 submerged stations spread across the Atlantic, from Florida to north Africa, to measure flow rate and other variables at different depths. Data from these stations confirmed the slowdown in 1998 was not a "freak observation"- although the current does seem to have picked up slightly since.

 

[2020hindsight]

Just a comment about the level of certainty implied in IPCC's 90% or 95% confidence limits that things are in fact warming globally ...
let's say it's 94% confidence...
that's like playing 2 up, but with 4 coins, - and the IPCC are prepared to put money on 4 tails

 

[2020hindsight]

The world's climate must be taken as a whole to discuss global warming/cooling. Single incidences may have other local factors at play... deforestation, heat sink effect, el niño/la niña, whatever.

On a whole the world has been getting cooler over the last decade... and that's from the likes of NASA etc.

Wayne you posted this in response to the Tasman Glacier comments ..

I think you'll find that recession of glaciers is a damned site less "local" or "single incidents". - here are rough estimates of what is happening at other glaciers (and no question the majority over the world are receding and receding at an alarming rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

btw, I've already posted this re your NASA claims

NASA continues to a summary :-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Summary
The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense.

In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.