2008 Is the Coldest Year of the 21st Century

dtjohnson writes "Data from the United Kingdom Meteorological Office suggests that 2008 will be an unusually cold year due to the La Nina effect in the western Pacific ocean. Not to worry, though, as the La Nina effect has faded recently so its effect on next year's temperatures will be reduced. However, another natural cycle, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, is predicted to hold global temperatures steady for the next decade before global warming takes our planet into new warmth. If these predictions are correct, there must be a lot of planetary heat being stored away somewhere ... unless the heat output from the sun is decreasing rather than increasing or the heat being absorbed by the earth is decreasing due to changes in the earth's albedo."

Comments

Stupid sunspots...( or lack thereof )

[tjstork]

Those of us who are paranoid about the sun have got some justification for our beliefs. First off, the new solar cycle is somewhat late, depending on who you believe. Secondly, there have been very few sunspots this year. In fact, right now, we have gone 30 days without a single sunspot.

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

Fire up those SUVs and coal plants, little ice age, here we come.

Let's have some context, please

[shma]

2008 may be the coldest year of the 21st century, but every other 21st century year sits at the top of the list of warmest years on record. Currently seven out of the top eight spots on the list of warmest years on record are occupied by one of the last seven years. Also from the BBC article:

Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease.

I hate to point out the obvious, but global warming models do not predict a year over year increase in temperature. Again, from the article:

"The principal thing is to look at the long-term trend," said Dr Kennedy. "2008 will still be significantly above the long-term average. There's been a strong upward trend in the last few decades, and that's the thing to focus on."

Re:Oh goody...

[nmb3000]

Global warming is a misnomer anyway - it should be called, "global climate instability."

The earth's climate is a control system. As it becomes unstable [...]

Both of you are assuming that the Earth's climate has ever been stable, but even if it is stable, who's to say that it's becoming unstable now? We've seen evidence of relatively severe fluctuations in the climate, the ice age for example, which suggest that it's normal for the climate to change. To us it seems significant but when taken in the proper scope it's likely to be business as usual.

Getting people worked up about things nobody can change is simply an ace-in-the-hole for politicians.

Re:Depleting nuclear reserves predates civilizatio

[StrategicIrony]

already sitting there burning at the same rate underground right now

You clearly don't understand nuclear physics.

Thorium natural isotope has a half-life 13 billion years (yes, 13 billion).

Uranium's natural isotope has a half-life of 4.4 billion years.

Neither are "burning up underground".

Most fuel is created by modifying it to create less stable isotopes. Then, when you put a big pile of it together (and/or bombard it with particles, as in the previous article), it creates a chain-reaction that triggers rapid fission. This is VERY different than half-life decay.

You do, indeed, "burn" it up. I'm not arguing against nuclear power, but just pointing out that your post is pretty much 100% entirely made up gibberish .