Just a reminder as we all wait for Spring to actually ‘sprung’ that from the high average temperature of 1998 to ten years later the Earth’s climate has cooled or plateaued. And don’t take my word for it (though there is no reason why you shouldn’t). Here is some interesting news on Global Warming (or the lack therein)

Last Monday – on ABC Radio National, of all places – there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?”

She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”

Duffy: “Is this a matter of any controversy?”

Marohasy: “Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued … This is not what you’d expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you’d expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up … So (it’s) very unexpected, not something that’s being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it’s very significant.”

As can be seen in the data the last decade has been really flat. And all that warming we see from 1980 on probably has more to do with the explosion of computers and satellites, and the more accurate global data they can produce, than the amount of CO2 in the air. But no reactionary radical is going to understand that a 0.4 degree change in the measurements could simply be the result of more accurate means of getting and modeling the measurements. How can you build a radical movement on such nonsense?

After nearly 30 years of unfulfilled prophecies and predictions I am not surprised the IPCC is not bothered by this latest round of conflicting scientific data. Why stop crying the end of the world is nigh now? (H/T James Murray at Newsbusters). In light of the fact that the global climate is actually destroying the models and scientific speculation about CO2 levels and temperatures, and good whacko would simply redouble their claims that the end of the world is nigh! And so while the data shows the fallacy of the man-made global warming hordes, some of them have simply decided to throw caution to the wind and go completely over the edge:

By 2040, the world population of more than six billion will have been culled by floods, drought and famine.

The people of Southern Europe, as well as South-East Asia, will be fighting their way into countries such as Canada, Australia and Britain.

We will, he says, have to set up encampments in this country, like those established for the hundreds of thousands of refugees displaced by the conflict in East Africa.

Lovelock believes the subsequent ethnic tensions could lead to civil war.

Crackpot or visionary, the fact is that more and more people are paying attention to Lovelock, and that he, himself, supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the influential group who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former American vice president Al Gore for their campaigns on global warming.

You know, there was a time when the doom-sayers who plowed the streets with visions of the end of the world were just a sad joke. These people were wrong and speculated wildly. People cannot help but notice the reality is not following the models, so is it reality that is wrong? LOL! Only in the minds of those who believe they are all-knowing and reality is just being stubborn in acknowledging the fact they are all-knowing.

Side note, the article noting that the last decade’s actual record mentions NASA’s Aqua Mission – which I had the honor to work on.

Duffy: “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?”

Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”

Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?”

Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”

It is the newest of the Earth Observing satellites, and if it is not supporting the IPCC then I doubt it is a problem with the satellite or instruments. In fact, though, all the skeptics have been noting that the IPCC doesn’t address the water vapor component or accurately reflect its dominant role in the green house effect (water counts for well over 90% of the effect). Al Gore did not invent the internet and he did not discover man-made global warming. Anyone listening to him is in for a world of hurt.