All CATEGORIES
☰ Menu
All Da King's Men

Global Warming Not So Hot

By Da King Published: December 10, 2010

Irony of the global warming variety:

7 Dec 10 - With the UN Climate Change Conference underway in Cancun to discuss the dangers of Global Warming, the resort host location is experiencing its third straight day of record cold temperatures...

Today the mercury fell to 53F in Cancun. The record for this date - 57F - was set in 2000.

Yesterday, the temperature in Cancun fell to 53F, a new record, and on Dec 5th it fell to 51F, yet another new record.

On a related note, global warming stopped fifteen years ago:

Last week at Cancun, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give £20billion immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100, leading to rocketing food prices and a decline in production.

The math isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.

Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.

They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.

Hmmm. Somebody better call Al Gore. I thought he said we had reached the tipping point, not the leveling off point. What did I do with that IPCC hockey stick graph ? Ah, here it is. This is the IPCC's 2001 prediction of future world temperatures:

Wow. That's waaay off. If you drew a straight horizontal line from 1996 to 2010 it would more accurately reflect global temperatures. The upward temperature trend the IPCC predicted has not happened.

Surely, the scientists have an explanation, correct ? I mean, heck, they're SCIENTISTS, and the IPCC says there's a "consensus" on global warming, and all skeptics are little more than flat earther cavemen.

...Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's ' Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.

He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment , and it is a travesty that we can't.'

Hmmm. That was an inconvenient truth, alright. I'm no climatologist, and lord knows I don't want to sound all flat earthy and caveman-like, but...is it possible that CO2 isn't that big a threat ? Is it possible the effects of CO2 are somewhere between none and mild ? Is it possible that something else caused the recent warming and halt to warming...like...say...THE SUN...or...water vapor ?:

A decade-long plateau in global warming appears to have occurred in large part because the stratosphere – the layer of atmosphere that few but airliners enter – got drier.

That’s an explanation by a team of atmospheric scientists from the United States and Germany. They’ve studied trends in stratospheric water vapor over the past 30 years and calculated the effects of those trends on temperatures.

A decline in stratospheric water vapor between 2000 and 2009 followed an apparent increase between 1980 and 2000, according to balloon and satellite measurements that the team used. The decline slowed the long-term growth in global average temperatures by some 25 percent, compared with the warming one could expect from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases alone, the team estimates.

"There's not a lot of water in the stratosphere. It's extremely dry," says Susan Solomon, an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., who led the team. "But it packs a wallop" in terms of its climatic effects, she says.

Other factors probably played a role as well in the temperature plateau, the team acknowledges.

Another contributor could have been sulfate aerosols from the rising number of coal-fired power plants in China, point out researchers such as Drew Shindell, with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

Still, he and others agree, the new results indicate that stratospheric water vapor, especially in the lowest regions of the stratosphere, can have a significant impact on global average temperature trends when viewed in decade-long time frames.

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. By some estimates, it accounts for anywhere from 36 percent to 85 percent of the atmosphere's greenhouse effect, depending on whether clouds are included.

What I just read there says water vapor could have caused the warming, and a reduction in water vapor could have caused the warming to stop. So why have we been told CO2 is the problem, a relatively minor greenhouse gas when compared to water vapor ?

But wait, there's more:

Another potential contributor to variation in stratospheric water vapor: fine particles that result from burning biomass for fuel or to clear farmland in the tropics. In 2002, atmospheric researcher Steven Sherwood described how increases in particles can lead to increases in stratospheric water vapor.

One of the "grand challenges" that researchers now face is trying to figure out whether the variability that Solomon and her colleagues have identified represents a natural swing in climate or whether it represents a broader climate feedback that might over the long term offset the effects of what scientists say is human-triggered global warming.

Um, did I just hear that our groovy new green energy source, biomass (i.e. ethanol), could be contributing to global warming ? Oh my. I always thought putting food (corn) into our gas tanks was a really bad idea, but now it may be harming the environment as well ? Rats. What's an environmentally-conscious fellow like myself to believe ?

It's all so confusing....and that's one of the many reasons why Cap And Trade is a scam. It tries to impose solutions to questions that have not been answered yet.

Now you'll have to excuse me while I go knock the icicles off my gutters. Bye.

Print
Add This

SUBSCRIBE VIA RSS

OHIO.COM VIDEOS

About This Blog