Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

[tlongII]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof
Posted: October 20, 2008, 10:26 AM by Kelly McParland

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement. Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to "a negative PDO" or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs -- El Ninos -- produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones -- La Ninas -- produce below average ones.

Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.

Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures.

Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather -- even harvest totals and censuses --confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.

But in order to prove the climate scaremongers' claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented -- a result of human, not natural factors -- the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies.

Dr. Loehle's work helps end this deception.

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."

Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a "hoax," a "fraud" and simply "not credible."

While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming.

http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin

[BacktoBasics]

Summary?

[1369]

Look at what's been happening off the Horn of Africa and that'll tell you why global temps are coming down.

[RandomGuy]

climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.


climate hysteria
Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community.

climate scaremongers'

Dr. Loehle's work helps end this deception.

"Man-made global warming is junk science,"

Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a "hoax," a "fraud" and simply "not credible."

the True Believers



Because you can obviously trust the author to present the evidence in an even-handed fair manner, and should accept the article at face value with no critical thinking about the claims and assertions. :rolleyes

[CubanMustGo]

Funny how much faster that 'global trend line' comes down now that it did in say, 1998-2000. Methinks something stinks, and it's not TlongII's sheepgirl.

[tlongII]

Because you can obviously trust the author to present the evidence in an even-handed fair manner, and should accept the article at face value with no critical thinking about the claims and assertions. :rolleyes

Can you blame him for his method of presentation after all the garbage that global-warming theorists have trumpeted?

[lurker23]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Yes, the last few years have been cooler. Funny thing is, they're still warmer than anything else in the last century and a half, other than the last decade.

[Anti.Hero]

A tool to make money, a tool to control.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Summary?

Man does not dictate the weather, contrary to popular belief.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Yes, the last few years have been cooler. Funny thing is, they're still warmer than anything else in the last century and a half, other than the last decade.

That graph shows a 0.8 degree change over a hundred and fifty years. Propaganda.

[Blake]

huh.....

I thought the polar caps were still melting.

I guess this article means that the ice is getting bigger, not smaller..

phew, what a relief.

[T Park]

Global cooling 70's = Global Warming now

Its the same BS, its the same scare tactic that is now fueled by large corporations that stand to profit from said scare tactics..

[Flight3107]

http://www.extremefunnyhumor.com/pics/Global_warming.jpg

[PixelPusher]

Summary?

"I'm gonna bend the trendline downward on just the last two years of that graph, and you're supposed to assume every year following will be cooler than the last because I say so."

[Flight3107]

Summary?


Global Warming = Crazy wack jobs making shit up.

[lurker23]

That graph shows a 0.8 degree change over a hundred and fifty years. Propaganda.

Yes, it does, with most of it happening over the last century. The following quotes come from the Wikipedia article on Global Warming, a very well written article composed primarily by professional climatologists.

-----

Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005....

Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.

-----

I know this doesn't sound like a lot, but on a global scale this is huge. I admit that the potential effects of this warming (or at least the timeline for it) have been over-sensationalized at times, but the impact will be real. For a long time, the average American probably won't see direct impacts, as the worst will be in poorer island nations barely above sea level, and also impacts on animal and plant life. However, the fact that politics have clouded the science on this issue and have swayed so many laypeople to the wrong side of a relatively certain scientific issue is sad indeed.

[travis2]

And your qualifications to call it "certain" would be...?

The IPCC is nothing but a political entity, not a scientific organization.

Models? The models are junk. They can't even reproduce what ACTUALLY happened given measured data, much less predict what's going to happen.

The peer review process for climatological papers has been perverted into an Orwellian nightmare.

What's sad is your slavish devotion to such a scheme.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Yes, it does, with most of it happening over the last century. The following quotes come from the Wikipedia article on Global Warming, a very well written article composed primarily by professional climatologists.

-----

Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005....

Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.

-----

I know this doesn't sound like a lot, but on a global scale this is huge. I admit that the potential effects of this warming (or at least the timeline for it) have been over-sensationalized at times, but the impact will be real. For a long time, the average American probably won't see direct impacts, as the worst will be in poorer island nations barely above sea level, and also impacts on animal and plant life. However, the fact that politics have clouded the science on this issue and have swayed so many laypeople to the wrong side of a relatively certain scientific issue is sad indeed.


Personally I don't base my opinion on politics at all, but rather on the entire body of research. I'm fairly convinced that man's impact on global temperature changes is incredibly small.

Conversely, I will say that it's very important that we work to preserve our rainforests, conserve our natural resources, and look for cleaner, alternative energy sources. I fully support the idea of protecting the planet, but not based upon the media fear machine that man is somehow responsible for any global warming that may have occured in the last century.

It's already been proven that the earth has undergone similar temperature fluctuations in the last 2,000 years, and one commonly held belief is that the earth is likely headed towards another ice age in the next few thousand years.

Global climate changes...drastic global climate changes...have been occurring far before man's supposed influence on it.

I'm all for going green and protecting the planet, but not due to the scare tactics regaring global warming being used by so many folks.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

What's new here? Another bullshit article written by a layman citing a geologist, a chemist and a meteorologist - not a climatologist in sight! Want to engage in a real discussion go to http://www.realclimate.org/ and talk to climatologists from all over the world in online, uncensored debate.

Look at the biosphere - ice melts at the poles and disappearing glaciers, species migrations and disappearances, earlier flowering times, the rate of change of temperature in regional areas, etc. Look at the atmospheric chemistry - change the concentration of gases in a closed system and you must change the equilibrium state of the system (that is basic physics). Then, on top of that, look at the models which predict pretty much what we are actually seeing in the world's climate. There is a freaking ton of evidence out there to support enhanced global warming (EGW) theory, and cherry picking a graph here and there is horseshit.

Oh, and most of the "scientists" who "dissent" are either fossil fuel hired guns, non-climatologists, or are misquoted - they often say that they do not believe that a particular event, like say more hurricanes, can be linked to EGW, but that they do believe that the climate is changing on the basis of the available evidence. (BTW, EGW does not predict more hurricanes, but it does predict a larger proportion of more extreme hurricanes).

However, I am aware that nothing I say will influence those of you who think the planet is immune to the influence of 7,000,000,000 humans who consume 31,000,000,000 barrels of oil and 6,000,000,000 tons of coal a year (just for starters), so I'll leave you to your ignorance.

[T Park]

Personally I don't base my opinion on politics at all, but rather on the entire body of research. I'm fairly convinced that man's impact on global temperature changes is incredibly small.

Conversely, I will say that it's very important that we work to preserve our rainforests, conserve our natural resources, and look for cleaner, alternative energy sources. I fully support the idea of protecting the planet, but not based upon the media fear machine that man is somehow responsible for any global warming that may have occured in the last century.

It's already been proven that the earth has undergone similar temperature fluctuations in the last 2,000 years, and one commonly held belief is that the earth is likely headed towards another ice age in the next few thousand years.

Global climate changes...drastic global climate changes...have been occurring far before man's supposed influence on it.

I'm all for going green and protecting the planet, but not due to the scare tactics regaring global warming being used by so many folks.

Very well said.

Here here.

[travis2]

What's new here? Another bullshit article written by a layman citing a geologist, a chemist and a meteorologist - not a climatologist in sight! Want to engage in a real discussion go to http://www.realclimate.org/ and talk to climatologists from all over the world in online, uncensored debate.

Look at the biosphere - ice melts at the poles and disappearing glaciers, species migrations and disappearances, earlier flowering times, the rate of change of temperature in regional areas, etc. Look at the atmospheric chemistry - change the concentration of gases in a closed system and you must change the equilibrium state of the system (that is basic physics). Then, on top of that, look at the models which predict pretty much what we are actually seeing in the world's climate. There is a freaking ton of evidence out there to support enhanced global warming (EGW) theory, and cherry picking a graph here and there is horseshit.

Oh, and most of the "scientists" who "dissent" are either fossil fuel hired guns, non-climatologists, or are misquoted - they often say that they do not believe that a particular event, like say more hurricanes, can be linked to EGW, but that they do believe that the climate is changing on the basis of the available evidence. (BTW, EGW does not predict more hurricanes, but it does predict a larger proportion of more extreme hurricanes).

However, I am aware that nothing I say will influence those of you who think the planet is immune to the influence of 7,000,000,000 humans who consume 31,000,000,000 barrels of oil and 6,000,000,000 tons of coal a year (just for starters), so I'll leave you to your ignorance.


Typical enviro-Nazi stance. I expect little more from socialists like you who want nothing more than to rob from those who actually have done something with their lives...all in the name of "fairness". Bullshit.

Ignorance? I've forgotten more about the mathematics involved than you'll ever know. Fuck you and your Nazi friends.

[exstatic]

Look at what's been happening off the Horn of Africa and that'll tell you why global temps are coming down.

Pirates are the answer to global warming?

[tlongII]

What's new here? Another bullshit article written by a layman citing a geologist, a chemist and a meteorologist - not a climatologist in sight! Want to engage in a real discussion go to http://www.realclimate.org/ and talk to climatologists from all over the world in online, uncensored debate.

Look at the biosphere - ice melts at the poles and disappearing glaciers, species migrations and disappearances, earlier flowering times, the rate of change of temperature in regional areas, etc. Look at the atmospheric chemistry - change the concentration of gases in a closed system and you must change the equilibrium state of the system (that is basic physics). Then, on top of that, look at the models which predict pretty much what we are actually seeing in the world's climate. There is a freaking ton of evidence out there to support enhanced global warming (EGW) theory, and cherry picking a graph here and there is horseshit.

Oh, and most of the "scientists" who "dissent" are either fossil fuel hired guns, non-climatologists, or are misquoted - they often say that they do not believe that a particular event, like say more hurricanes, can be linked to EGW, but that they do believe that the climate is changing on the basis of the available evidence. (BTW, EGW does not predict more hurricanes, but it does predict a larger proportion of more extreme hurricanes).

However, I am aware that nothing I say will influence those of you who think the planet is immune to the influence of 7,000,000,000 humans who consume 31,000,000,000 barrels of oil and 6,000,000,000 tons of coal a year (just for starters), so I'll leave you to your ignorance.


Please pay attention to the following quoted portion of the article...


An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."


Essentially what it's saying is that you're full of shit.

[JessicaJoy]

Things change I guess.

[RandomGuy]

Can you blame him for his method of presentation after all the garbage that global-warming theorists have trumpeted?

Yes, yes I can.

I can even say that such an obviously stilted bit probably hurts the author's cause, because it makes him sound like a 9-11 truther trying to prove that spaces rays destroyed the twin towers.

That kind of language should have no place in a scientific debate. Critical thinking and intellectual honesty are not optional, to be discarded at will.

[RandomGuy]

Typical enviro-Nazi stance. I expect little more from socialists like you who want nothing more than to rob from those who actually have done something with their lives...all in the name of "fairness". Bullshit.

Ignorance? I've forgotten more about the mathematics involved than you'll ever know. Fuck you and your Nazi friends.

I see you have him in the crushing grip of reason.

Here is a question for you:

You live downstream from farmer Brown, kinda out in the country.

Beef prices go up and he decides to start maintaining a cattle yard. To help keep the cattle nice and healthy, this yard is located close to the best source of water in the area, the stream that runs through your property.

When it rains, even a little, the runnoff from the yard carries into the stream and turns it into a brown, stinking river of poop, complete with floating cow pies.

Is he doing something wrong?

[RandomGuy]

B1PPY6ElKZM

[travis2]

I see you have him in the crushing grip of reason.

Here is a question for you:

You live downstream from farmer Brown, kinda out in the country.

Beef prices go up and he decides to start maintaining a cattle yard. To help keep the cattle nice and healthy, this yard is located close to the best source of water in the area, the stream that runs through your property.

When it rains, even a little, the runnoff from the yard carries into the stream and turns it into a brown, stinking river of poop, complete with floating cow pies.

Is he doing something wrong?

False analogy/false dilemma. You're supposed to be smarter than that.

[RandomGuy]

Here is a question for you:

You live downstream from farmer Brown, kinda out in the country.

Beef prices go up and he decides to start maintaining a cattle yard. To help keep the cattle nice and healthy, this yard is located close to the best source of water in the area, the stream that runs through your property.

When it rains, even a little, the runnoff from the yard carries into the stream and turns it into a brown, stinking river of poop, complete with floating cow pies.

Is he doing something wrong?


False analogy/false dilemma. You're supposed to be smarter than that.

I didn't say it was an analogy for global warming.

The purpose of the question was to examine some moral implications of pollution in general, as you seem to have a very negative opinion of the environmental movement.

My thoughts on global warming are best typified by the youtube video I posted at the top of this page.

[travis2]

as you seem to have a very negative opinion of the environmental movement.


I don't have a problem with conservation and expending reasonable effort towards "green" activities and such. I have a huge problem with the extremism shown by what is currently known as the "environmental movement". I am also appalled at the perversion of the research and peer review processes perpetrated by the AGW "true believer" crowd. What they are doing is not science...it is propaganda.

Chopper stated my position extremely well...I saw no reason to repeat it.

[tlongII]

Yes, yes I can.

I can even say that such an obviously stilted bit probably hurts the author's cause, because it makes him sound like a 9-11 truther trying to prove that spaces rays destroyed the twin towers.

That kind of language should have no place in a scientific debate. Critical thinking and intellectual honesty are not optional, to be discarded at will.

Tell that to the global warming theorists.

[easjer]

Personally I don't base my opinion on politics at all, but rather on the entire body of research. I'm fairly convinced that man's impact on global temperature changes is incredibly small.

Conversely, I will say that it's very important that we work to preserve our rainforests, conserve our natural resources, and look for cleaner, alternative energy sources. I fully support the idea of protecting the planet, but not based upon the media fear machine that man is somehow responsible for any global warming that may have occured in the last century.

It's already been proven that the earth has undergone similar temperature fluctuations in the last 2,000 years, and one commonly held belief is that the earth is likely headed towards another ice age in the next few thousand years.

Global climate changes...drastic global climate changes...have been occurring far before man's supposed influence on it.

I'm all for going green and protecting the planet, but not due to the scare tactics regaring global warming being used by so many folks.

Exceptionally well said.

The part of the article that peaked my interest in the model was the mention of the Middle Ages Warming Period. It's something my medievalist friend has referred to many time, as the climate in England was similar to that of lower France or Italy at the time, and some apparently good wines were produced in England. It's difficult to argue the affect of man on climate during that period.

[Heath Ledger]

It's so clearly political propaganda and hidden agendas regarding the almighty dollar.
Global warming is bull shit!