Despite all of the dire nonsense that we’ve recently heard coming from Barry about how it is that "carbon is eating our planet," some recent data has once again made quite clear that that's simply not the case. What our planet is, quite obviously, being consumed by is, DEBT. But that's the subject for another post. That fact that Barry continues to spew such idiotic propaganda proves that his rationale most likely has more do with politics than it does with anything that, even remotely, has to do with any ‘global warming’ that may be happening. Now being a man of science, you would think he would know that recent data indicates that the world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago. The figures, which have triggered the recent debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, or 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for roughly 40 years.
Now it should come as no surprise here that this new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until very recently had not even been reported on. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010, a very warm year. At that time we were told by global warming calamitists that we now faced some pretty horrific consequences. Skewing the data by ending then makes it possible for those who insist that we are the purveyors of our own doom to show a slight warming trend since 1997, however, 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased. Die hard climate scientists, or those who chose to deny the actual facts, guys like some guy named Professor Phil Jones, who happens to be the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, home of 'Climategate', last week chose to dismiss the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
But many others have chosen to disagree. One of those who chooses to disagree is Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at Georgia Tech university. Professor Curry has said in a recent interview just this past Sunday, that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’. And apparently even Professor Jones, our die hard global warming advocate, admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’, factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he and his colleagues stubbornly remain convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two even though that’s not what the data is saying. But I think it fair to ask, on what exactly, does he and his colleagues base that assumption. The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. So might Professor Jones and his colleagues perhaps have some ulterior motive here?
If we go all the way back to 1880, when worldwide industrialization began to gather speed and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, we see that the world has warmed by less than half a degree Fahrenheit. Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next 'climate change' quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill? You may find the answers to the first two surprising. As previously mentioned since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about half a degree Fahrenheit. And from the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is...zero. Which begs the question, how is it, exactly, that our planet can then being the process of being eaten by carbon, as Barry would have us believe?
The answer to that third all important question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, a big part, because of the policies that have been put into place by Barry and his EPA which, I think can safely be accused of having gone rogue. From day one of Barry's coming into office war was essentially declared on fossil fuels of every type. Which seems to be the only type of war that Barry feels comfortable in declaring. As we sit back and watch as Barry pours billions and billions of our taxpayer money into every 'green energy' boondoggle imaginable, he continues to ignore completely the vast wealth of energy that we are literally sitting right on top of. This cockamamie notion of 'global warming' is shared by politicians of all stripes and is 'drilled' into the heads of our children beginning in grade school with kid being scared into believing that without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences. Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialization over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.
‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry said in a recent interview. ‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect. ‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’ Professor Phil Jones, agreed with her on two important points. The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event, ‘it could go on for a while’. Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’
Yet Prof Jones maintains that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said. And that's despite the fact that in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent, he told a colleague in one of those Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the "no upward trend" has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions. ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’ Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years. Meanwhile, his many colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’
So let’s be clear. Even if global warming is real, it 's cause is far from being determined absolutely. And if some of it, at least, may have been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels, the evidence would seem to suggest that it's happening much slower than these catastrophists like Barry, and his buddy Al Gore, have claimed. The bottom line here, which should go without saying, is that our planet is not being consumed as Barry would have us believe. It's just more campaign trash talk. It's all nothing more than part of the near endless stream of fiction that we here as being the basis for re-electing Barry. This 'theory' of continuing 'climate change' has long been an issue near and dear to the hearts of Democrats. Primarily because the voew as being a scam that they can use to garner for themselves massive amount of money which they can then turn around and use to buy votes. If you remember, it was back in the 1970's that we were being told we needed to modify our behavior due to the coming ice age. Today it's because we prevent our planet from being eaten by carbon. I ask you, does any of this make the least bit of sense?
No comments:
Post a Comment