Jan 11 2010
Global Warming Turns Into Decades Of Global Cooling
As a lead into a detailed analytical post I have been working (and which I hope to have out later today) I found this interesting article on how Global Warming is not coming for at least 20 years, as mother nature proves once again the man-made global warming theories are essentially bogus:
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.
Mother Nature is not just challenging the beliefs underpinning AGW, she is exposing the shoddy science and math that went into these theories. More on this later today (I hope!).
Update: One interesting result in this analysis is the conclusion is that this new cooling indicates man-made global warming could account for less than 50% of the climate changes we are experiencing:
Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.
He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.
Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.
Well, well. Now we have scientific evidence that man’s activities are NOT mostly responsible for the climate we have been experiencing. Which means changing our miniscule carbon dioxide production will not change the weather – duh!
Last summer I took my family on a vacation that featured stops at many of our western National Parks, including Glacier National Monument. My kids learned (from our government’s National Park Service) that 13,000 years ago half of north america was covered by glaciers then they began to recede as the earth warmed. This led to the obvious question from my 9 year old: Dad, what were people doing back then to cause the earth to warm up and melt the glaciers?
I did my best to explain that the earth goes through constant changes and cycles where the climate moves from hot to cold and back, wet to dry and back, etc. I told him it was arrogant to think that humans were responsible for change when we are insignificant compared to the sun, volcanos, the oceans, etc. I think he got it. Its a unimaginable that educated scientists don’t. The only explanation is that they have something to gain by pushing the AGW agenda.
Another thing to ponder: By anyone’s accounting, the so-called benefits of reducing C02 emissions was already laughably low — almost all cost (extravagant) with hardly any benefit. It this 50% C02 effect on warming is true then, in their own system of thought, wouldn’t that sort of halve even those already paltry benefits? Why would anyone in their right mind promote this devastatingly costly (and thus immoral) avenue of action? You would be an immoral fool by definition.
A more effective solution is to simply print truck loads of cash, burn the cash in a power plant producing electricity, then plant trees and cotton from which more cash is made thereby producing “carbon neutral” energy.
[…] Decades of cooling […]