The AGW proponents are running for cover. The cover, in this instance, is by renaming their pet theory climate change as opposed to anthropogenic global warming. The reasons are fairly obvious. First, climate change is shorter, easier to remember and easier to spell, and the supporters of this poor idea certainly have little enough gray matter to spare on such trivial concerns. Second, as the underpinnings of their original theory, that the Earth is rolling up an exponential temperature curve, is giving way beneath them as the planet has been cooling off over the past decade, they can no longer decry the crisis of global warming and not get ridiculed. Third, calling it climate change gives them the ability to claim that they were correct no matter which way the thermometer moves.
That third point so amply demonstrates the absolute bankruptcy of their position ('no matter what happens, we're right, and we all have to do as we say to make things better') that I really don't have to go any further in discrediting them. However, as I am a firm believer in the flogging of dead horses and the blistering incineration of willful ignorance, I shall go on.
To begin, we'll start with recent headlines. Bloomberg News reports: U.S. Northeast May Have Coldest Winter in a Decade. From KTVB.com in Idaho: Quick Cold Snap Fills Up Homeless Shelters -- Boise, ID is already having sub-freezing temperatures before October 1. In Daytona Beach, FL the record low of 58 degrees F was tied on October 1, 17 days early compared to average. Port Huron, MI broke a 74 year old low temperature record on the same date. Both Montana and Idaho are also breaking cold temperature records already this early in the year. Even Pennsylvania is being forecast to have a "possibly damaging early-season snow" at the end of this week.
Game 3 of the MLB National League Division playoff between the Colorado Rockies and the Philadelphia Phillies, scheduled to be played in Denver on October 10, had to be postponed because of bitter cold, sleet and snow. The temperature dipped to 17 degrees F, easily breaking the 104 year old record of 25 degrees set in 1905.
Yes, this is climate change -- changing back to what is normal from more than a decade of abnormally warm temperatures. But since the CO2 levels are not dropping, why are temperatures decreasing? Because the temperature increases had nothing to do with the increased CO2 levels in the first place. (More on this below.)
Two prominent meteorologists have recently gone public in a big way regarding their opposition to the theory of AGW.
Matt Rogers of The Washington Post's Capitol Weather Gang blog a Top Ten list of why he questions the 'consensus' view of AGW. Among these are many items I have covered in previous posts, such as the lack of warming over the last 10 years despite continued increases in CO2 levels, the inadequacies of the AGW computer models (which he believes "are over-estimating anthropogenic (human) forcing influences and under-estimating natural variability (like the current cold-phase Pacific Decadal Oscillation and solar cycles)", and the recent lowering of solar irradiance as indicated by the profound lack of sunspots recently. He adds in a few new wrinkles, like the effect of chaos theory making long-term predictions extraordinarily problematic. And like a true scientist, he complains about the vehement way that any dissenters from the AGW dogma are treated.
Joe Bastardi, Expert Senior Forecaster at AccuWeather and considered to be one of the premier meteorologists in the country, was on The O'Reilly Factor in late September showing several pieces of hard evidence debunking the AGW theory, primarily by revealing that real-world data are contrary to what the AGW computer models say they should be. (The video of that appearance is at the bottom of the page of that link.) In a followup statement posted as an open letter to AccuWeather.com readers, he went on to say:
Unlike many people, I am well acquainted and respect the co2 warming idea, but in its pure form, which actually allows for the cooling coming now! Therein lies the problem. We can't know till after the period that is coming up through 2030 whether co2 is really a player or not. The threat of not only oceanic cycles cooling the earth, but the suns lack of intensity and increased volcanic and seismic activity could mean that as some papers in the early 90s (and dismissed by many) opined we would be as cold as back in the early 1800s. What you see now may just be the beginning. One thing we do know, that we should be skeptical of any future event, no matter what we believe.
I will leave you with this. Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet. Common sense dictates that what has happened before without man can happen again with man. Common sense would dictate that you not believe me, or any one else, but go look for YOURSELF. If its important enough for you to be happy with what I said, or to be mad as all get out at what I said, you owe it to yourself to go read all sides of the argument. To be informed, and not to simply throw stones.
The response of the AGW zealots was what one would expect from zealots. They resorted to name-calling ("Deniers!"), questioning of the intelligence and credentials of the critics, and continued pronouncements that the science is settled without engaging in any kind of reasoned debate. In other words, they simply threw stones. Or they simply refuse to defend their own views against reasoned criticisms:
In what organizers said was a rarity, Gore took half a dozen questions from journalists, including one from Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker who asked Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007.
Gore responded that the court ruling supported the showing of his film in British schools. When McAleer tried to debate further, his microphone was cut off by the moderators.
The BBC asks "What Happened to Global Warming?" They go on to elaborate that the predicted warming hasn't happened and then to discuss why. They mention solar scientist Piers Corbyn who "claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures. He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month." (I wish I could hear more about this now!) Next they mention Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University, who believes that ocean cycles, particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, are responsible for most of the temperature changes that we have observed so far and what we will see in the future. Says Professor Easterbrook:
The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.
From down-under New Zealand/Australia way comes a study by Chris de Freitas (University of Auckland in New Zealand), John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University) which states that “little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity". It is discussed in more non-climatologist language here. The gist of the study is that a shift in the climate in the Pacific Ocean in 1976 altered El Niño and La Niña patterns, resulting in more warming El Niños and fewer cooling La Niñas, thus producing the changes in the observed global temperatures over the last 50 years. This phenomenon of alternating El Niños and La Niñas, called ENSO [El Niño-Southern Oscillation], has been occurring with varying intensities for at least 300 years (see the section on Cultural History and Pre-historic Information), so it seems unlikely that it is being caused solely by the current increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, though scientists continue to debate what actually does cause the phenomenon.
The effects of El Niño and La Niña are well known to even laymen and the two year study has concluded that ENSO is directly related to global temperature rises in recent decades. The authors have been able to directly correlate the past 50 years of average global temperatures with ENSO cycles. Temperatures were found to have lagged ENSO events by approximately seven months consistently. De Freitas said, “We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century.”
Our Southern Hemisphere neighbors also criticize the current state of computer climate models, stating:
Co-author McLean drew attention to the fact that current climate models cannot even accurately reproduce known temperature changes. Previous studies have shown that the climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fall outside acceptable scientific boundaries. McLean said, “When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modelers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall.”
They further conclude:
If ENSO is indeed responsible for 80% of global temperature changes, manmade contributions to global warming would appear to be highly insignificant, much like a growing chorus of scientists have been claiming for some time. Australia, much like the United States, is considering cap and trade legislation that would attempt to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by forcing businesses to buy credits for their emissions.
Concerns about the cost to consumers and the negligible effect it would have has the measure stalled in the United States Senate for the time being. Carter specifically addressed carbon trading schemes saying “No scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate."So what are the geniuses in the U.S. Senate up to? Why, proposing an emission trading scheme, of course! And that particular genius-who-would've-been-President John Kerry said this:
I don't know what 'cap and trade' means. I don't think the average American does. This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it's a pollution reduction bill.
Willful ignorance, Mr. Kerry, willful ignorance. Sure, you don't know what cap and trade means. Because you know it's really a hidden tax, and one of the biggest taxes the Congress has ever considered. So you want to call it a pollution reduction bill, thinking that might hide its true nature. Sorry, Senator, the American people are smarter than that.
Climate change, indeed!
The only climate change we need right now is one where the scientific process once again supersedes ideological dogma, and that scientists are free to announce their findings without ending up in the hot seat. Unfortunately, it seems like it will be a cold day in Hell before that happens anytime soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment