How many cool years like this last one will it take before global warming falls off the political radar?

Question

Please see data and article linked below:

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Obviously, one year does not a climate make. So how many successive cool years would it take to end the GW debate?

This is a political question, not a scientific question. So, without getting into the question of whether or not GW or AGW is real (which has been debated ad nauseum on this forum), or whether the article is politically motivated, I'm looking for your idea of how long it would take to end the political rhetoric and posturing over Global Warming.

Answer 1

We have already had 10 years of falling or stable temperatures

Temperatures fell in 1999 and 2000, were stable from 2000 to 2006 and fell in 2007.

Too many people have too much political capital invested in global warming, and will probably remain in denial for many years

Answer 2

The earth always warms and cools. ice ages and tropical periods. its been this way since the earth was formed. the earth is an ever changing planet a river will make a grand canyon, earth changes beyond our control. It changed before man, and it will continue changing after the age of man.

Answer 3

That's not going to happen.  This is nothing unusual.

Weather factors can overcome global warming for a short time.  It happened in 1982, 1991-1992, 1999-2000.  EVERY TIME global warming came back stronger than ever.  Proof.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

discussed in detail, with confirmation, at:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/g...

As long as we keep making greenhouse gases in enormous amounts, global warming will dominate in the long run.  It's simple physics.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/di...

Answer 4

Last year was 2007.  According to NASA GISS, it was tied for the 2nd-warmest year on record, and probably the 2nd-warmest year in the past many thousands of years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

Your article is basically talking about one cool month - January 2008.  It is a very poorly written article because it looks at the change from January 2007 (the hottest single month ever recorded) to January 2008 (a relatively cool month due to a strong La Nina cycle), ignores the months in-between (which had a very stable temperature, sometimes with slight increases and some slight decreases), and basically concludes based on 1 extremely hot month and 1 reatively cool month a year later that we had a cold year.  That's simply absurd.  Here is the data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabled...

So disregarding the poorly written article, to convince me that global warming had ended (which I can only assume is what you're asking), it would take a cooling trend in the global temperature.  If you want to quantify it, we would need to have 2 years fall in the blue area in the graph below before there were 2 years falling within the pink area.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/0...

Answer 5

Best global cooling site out there:

http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/gl...

Answer 6

Yes - your chart follows this one from NASA

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

Both show that the temperature drops over the last 10 years to be significant.

Global warming will probably make headlines until 2012, when the end of the world predictions will take over the headlines.

Answer 7

We're having a warm winter where I live.

How many successive warm years will you need to witness before you start taking GW seriously and realize that it's not a 'debate' any more.  

The meeting last February of 2500 of the worlds top climatologists came out with the unanimous statement that GW was 'unequivocal' and cause by man.

Now- apparently you know something about climate that none of these people know... please, share!

Answer 8

The issue will never fall off the radar.

They will merely change the terminology in order to suit their needs to continue fear-mongering.  They're doing it allready.  Look at how many "global warming" freaks are now using the term "climate change" instead.  Then they spin with... "It's not the heat.  It's the extreme changes."

Al Gore will tell you "the debate is over."  But truth is, he never debated anybody about it.  And when real scientists hold a convention in New York and offer to pay him to come and entertain the debate, he refuses.

Hmmmm.  Wonder why?

Answer 9

It would take at least one cool year that could not be explained by a natural phenomena such as La-Nina to convince many, and some hard headed individuals would only be convinced by a 30 year trend.

EDIT:

Yes I agree with you the CO2 forcing cannot overide natural climate variation, that is the point that most skeptics are trying to drive home, climate is not static, and personally I think the cooling trend is too large to be explained by La-Nina and I think it is the cycle change of the PDO we are seeing and temperatures will not be reboung any time soon as some alarmists speculate, but I hope they do.

Answer 10

it'll probably never end, the earth will cool dramatically and we'll be told it's our fault, or yellowstone will erupt and bring on a nuclear winter and we'll be told it's our fault, even if father christmas dropped a massive t**d on the house of commons, we'll still be told it's our fault.

Answer 11

It has already fallen off the political radar.  Back in 1997 the US Senate decided by (95-0) it didn't want to see any climate change treaty come anywhere near them for a vote (Byrd-Hagel).  There is a video with Al Gore explaining this decision on YouTube.  Bush uses almost the same wording for his climate change position.

Unlike other countries, a treaty ratified by the US Senate has the same force of law as the constitution.  So the US doesn't casually enter into treaties that other countries willing sign and renege on, like Kyoto.

Unless the US delegates to all these climate change soirees were complete morons about Byrd-Hagel (and that is a possibility), all they could ever say is that a climate treaty passing the Senate had a snowball's chance in H***.

There was a recent article in the NY Times about heart disease and dietary fat, that showed how wrong scientific "consensus" could be.  So if Hillary were elected, there would not be an outcry when she ignored climate change.

China will surpass the US in CO2 emissions this year or next, so the bad kid on the block is now China, and no one tells China what to do.

Politicians have known from the get-go that asking people to lower their standard of living for COLDER winters, and pay even more to stay warm, was a political non-starter.

So it has always been a question of how to appear "concerned" and pro-active and supportive of Kyoto and other environmental causes, while simultaneously making sure nothing would get done.  (Senator Kennedy blocking ocean windmills is a definitive example.  Liberal and big friend of the environment, but no clean alternative renewable power that spoils my ocean view please and we need another study that keeps this project stopped.)

Answer 12

"cool weather" does not invalidate global warming.  It is the extremes-colder to hotter than normal.  I don't know when they will stop debating this issue.  It seems to me the same people who don't believe in global warming are the same idiots who don't believe in evolution.  There is no changing their minds, they are religiously insane.