With this sudden wave of climate skeptics, you may want to ask why they waited so long to make their opinions heard. After all, the arguments against the global warming theory have not changed.
What has happened is that the abrupt reversal in global temperatures has utterly wrecked the thirty year warming trend and it has made everyone review their thinking about the climate.
Exactly the same thing happened to me last year when I woke up to find we were suddenly having a cold winter immediately after an amazingly warm Arctic summer.
That brought me to ask what was actually happening to the global heat equation. Forget about the sun and CO2 or anything else that is by its nature on a slow cycle. An abrupt end to a warm era is still abrupt. Were did the heat go?
Well we know that in 2007 that the winds picked up extraordinarily and dumped a lot of heat into the Arctic melting a huge amount of sea ice. That certainly took care of a lot of Northern Hemispheric heat buildup.
The remaining question was if there was a quick recovery of global heat content right behind it. Well, no such luck. Right now, it looks like the cycle is reversing back to the low end of the cool part of the cycle and I am beginning to think that the real heat machine runs over a seventy year cycle and is managed through the Pacific Decadal Cycle. In other words, this all happened once before with the prior peak in the Thirties.
Internal variation masks a lot of it with the likes of El Nino and La Nino and the odd noisy volcano. But that seems to be the big picture as we can presently discern it.
It is also hard to isolate any significant contribution from solar variation in this scenario. The big picture is able to adjust global temperatures by about a single degree and no more. All other postulated movers are operating within that one degree and not so strongly as to properly separate themselves from the noise.
Right now, I think that we have our answer regarding the condition of the global climate. It is fine and if we want it to warm up we are going to have to convert the Sahara into a garden spot.
Scientists urge caution on global warming
November 25, 2008
By: Erika Lovley
November 25, 2008 05:42 AM EST
Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.
While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.
So far, members of Congress have not been keen to publicly back the global cooling theory. But both senators from Oklahoma , Republicans Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, have often expressed doubts about how much of a role man-made emissions play.
“We want the debate to be about science, not fear and hypocrisy. We hope next year’s wave of new politics means a return to science,” said Coburn aide John Hart. “It’s the old kind of politics that doesn’t consider any dissenting opinions.”
The global cooling lobby’s challenge is enormous. Next year could be the unfriendliest yet for climate skeptics. Already, House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) has lost his gavel, in part because his peers felt he was less than serious about tackling global warming.
The National Academy of Sciences and most major scientific bodies agree that global warming is caused by man-made carbon emissions. But a small, growing number of scientists, including D’Aleo, are questioning how quickly the warming is happening and whether humans are actually the leading cause.
Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 — which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions.
Data from the same source shows that during five of the past seven decades, including this one, average U.S. temperatures have gone down. And the almanac predicted that the next year will see a period of cooling.
“We’re worried that people are too focused on carbon dioxide as the culprit,” D’Aleo said. “Recent warming has stopped since 1998, and we want to stop draconian measures that will hurt already spiraling downward economics. We’re environmentalists and conversationalist at heart, but we don’t think that carbon is responsible for hurricanes.”
Many Hill skeptics have varying opinions on whether the earth’s temperature is warming more slowly than some environmentalists predict and how much man is actually contributing to it.
Inhofe’s staff has been steadily compiling a list of global cooling findings. And aides report that they have received countless e-mails from scientists worldwide supporting the theory. While Inhofe hasn’t indicated that he will move forward with the information anytime soon, his aides continue to compile it.
Republicans aren’t the only ones who are wary of hastily passing a greenhouse gas bill. Ten Democrats wrote to Senate leaders earlier this year, citing economic concerns as a key reason why they didn’t vote for the Senate’s cap-and-trade bill.
And despite Democrats’ pickups in the Senate this fall, several of the new Democrats are from conservative, energy-producing states and may not be supportive, either.
But congressional aides say it could be a long wait before lawmakers are comfortable pushing science that contradicts the global warming theory. And until the lobby gains traction, skeptics plan to continue pushing their ideas by arguing for protection of the economy, where they hope to meet middle ground with global warming supporters.
“Never underestimate the ability of Congress to offer nonsolutions to problems that do not exist,” said Marc Morano, communications director for the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “We could spend weeks arguing the mounting scientific evidence refuting man-made warming fears,” he added, “but it’s the economic arguments that have the most immediate impact.”
At the Cato Institute, senior fellow Patrick Michaels, a contributing author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said most of Washington is already too deeply entrenched in the global warming mantra to turn back.
“You can’t expect the scientific community to now come to Washington and say this isn’t a problem.
Despite the growing science, the world’s leading crusader on climate change, Al Gore, is unconcerned.
“Climate deniers fall into the same camp as people who still don’t believe we landed on the moon,” said the former vice president’s spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider. “We don’t think this should distract us from the reality.”