UN Climate Experts: Global Cooling Will Continue Through 2008

This is all just further evidence that the earth is boiling over. Note: Link changed. This BBC version of the story is fuller and discusses the warming El Nino and cooling La Nina. Interestingly, it also states that El Nino warmed the world through the eighties. El Nino, La Nina, fucking up world temperatures. Build that wall, Mr. Bush.

Average global temperatures in 2008 are forecast to be lower than in previous years, thanks to the cooling effect of the ocean current in the Pacific, U.N. meteorologists say.

The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.

If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

A small number of scientists doubt whether this means global warming has peaked and the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted, but Jarraud insists this is not the case and notes that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he told the BBC. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up."

"Variability," in quotes, like he's using some arcane term of art.

Here's my problem: La Nina (or as it used be called, "El Nino," or am I misremembering?) used to be used as a general explanation for unexpected trends in global weather. If it gets hot, it's La Nina. If it gets cold, it's La Nina.

But that was before the Global Warming craze (and I use that word in its literal meaning). Since the Global Warming craze, we have been informed that the eighties/nineties cooling could not be due to any natural factor, such as La Nina, and that such natural factors were all inadequate to explain such "major changes" in the climate. Only man-made effects such as CO2 (The Invisible Killer) could possibly explain the eightes-nineties warming trend.

Now we have what seems to be a decade long trend in cooling and suddenly La Nina is back with a vengeance. Now La Nina is the convenient natural explanation of not only why the world is cooling, but in fact for why all of the predicted warming is not only not taking place but in fact entirely overwhelmed by the natural forces of cooling.

So I guess my question is this: If La Nina is a handy explanation for the 10 year drop in global temperatures, why is La Nina or a similar natural effect not also a perfectly adequate explanation for the 15-20 year increase in temperatures? Why are natural forces sufficient to explain drops in temperature but only CO2 (The Invisible Killer) can explain any increases?

And why is it that yet again a one or two (or ten!) year record of cooling is too short a span from which to draw any conclusions, but a twenty year record conclusively establishes global warming?

Anyone get the feeling the AGW lobby is, like Indiana Jones, "just making this up as [they] go along"?

Via Hot Air.

El Nino vs. La Nina: Robert tells me they're different phenomena, one causing warmth (I guess) the other cooling.

Same difference. If La Nina can not only offset greenhouse gas warming but push temperatures lower than long-term averages, why is it that El Nino or other natural warming effects cannot be responsible for the warming we're all supposed to be so worried about?

posted by Ace at 11:26 AM

| Access Comments