posted March 02, 2014 09:45 AM            

If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.

But the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.

When the period of no global warming began, the alarmist global warming establishment responded that even several years of temperature data does not establish a climate trend. That takes much longer. But when the period of no global warming gets longer than the period of actual global warming, what is the climate trend then?

Even worse for the theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic (human caused), global warming is that during this now extended period of no global warming mankind’s emissions of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that are supposed to be predominant in causing global warming continued to explode, with one third of all CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution occurring during this period. The Economist magazine shocked the global warming establishment with an article in March, 2013 that began with this lede:

Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.

That one quarter is actually now one third since the industrial revolution, which is now increasingly at stake in this debate. We are not going to be able to power anything remotely like the modern industrial revolution, which is actually straining even now to burst out of the “Progressive” bonds holding it back (at least in America), using the wind sources that powered the Roman economy, plus dancing on sunbeams.

Moreover, the now extended trend of no global warming is not turning around any time soon. That increasingly established trend is being produced by long term natural causes. Even rank amateurs among the general public can see that the sun is the dominant influence on the Earth’s temperatures. Even the most politicized scientists know that they cannot deny that solar activity such as sun spot cycles, and variations in solar magnetic fields or in the flux of cosmic rays, have contributed to major climate changes of the past, such as the Little Ice Age, particularly pronounced from roughly 1650 AD to 1850 AD, the Medieval Warm Period from about 950 AD to 1250 AD, during which global temperatures were higher than today, and the early 20th century Warming Period from 1910 to 1940 AD.

That solar activity, particularly sunspot cycles, is starting to mimic the same patterns that were seen during the Little Ice Age, as I discussed in a previous column. As a result, outside politically correct Western circles, where science today has been Lysenkoized on this issue, there is a burgeoning debate about how long of a cooling trend will result.

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 years with no global warming. The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013 regarding Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, “Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’” His colleague Yuri Nagovitsyn is quoted in The Voice of Russia saying, “we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” Skepticism over the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is increasingly embraced in China and elsewhere in Asia as well.

In addition, every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle. Known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), these natural causes are also contributing to the stabilized and now even slightly declining natural global temperature trends.

The foundation for the establishment argument for global warming are 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations discussed above, as I showed in a previous column, with another graphic. Because none of these models have been scientifically validated based on past temperature observations, they constitute a very weak scientific argument that does not remotely establish that the “science is settled,” and “global warming is a fact.” The current data discussed above establishes indisputably that global warming is not a fact today. The politicians seeking to browbeat down any continuing public debate are abusing their positions and authority with modern Lysenkoism, meaning “politically correct” science not established by the scientific method, but politically imposed.

The science behind all of this is thoroughly explained in the 1200 pages of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by 50 top scientists organized into the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published by the Heartland Institute in Chicago. You will want to own this volume (or just the summary) if for no other reason than that it says here that future generations of scientists will look back and say this is the moment when we took the political out of the political science of “climate change,” and this is how we did it. Real scientists know that these 50 co-authors are real scientists. That is transparent from the tenor of the report itself.

The publication (PDF) is “double peer reviewed,” in that it discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and is itself peer reviewed. That is in sharp contrast to President Obama’s own EPA, which issued its “endangerment finding” legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board, as required by federal law. What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them?

The conclusion of the report is that the U.N.’s IPCC has exaggerated the amount of global warming likely to occur due to mankind’s emissions of CO2, and the warming that human civilization will cause as a result “is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.” The primary, dominant cause of global climate change is natural causes, not human effects, the report concludes.

The fundamentals of the argument are that carbon dioxide is not some toxic industrial gas, but a natural, trace gas constituting just 0.038% of the atmosphere, or less than 4/100ths of one percent. The report states, “At the current level of 400 parts per million, we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels (of CO2) 15 times greater existed during the pre-Cambrian period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects,” such as catastrophic global warming. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 growing past 400 parts per million. But one percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. Moreover, human emissions of CO2 are only 4% to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes.

In addition, CO2 is actually essential to all life on the planet. Plants need CO2 to grow and conduct photosynthesis, which is the natural process that creates food for animals and fish at the bottom of the food chain. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that has occurred due to human emissions has actually increased agricultural growth and output as a result, causing actually an increased greening of the planet. So has any warming caused by such human emissions, as minor warming increases agricultural growth. The report states, “CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere ‘greens’ the planet and helps feed the growing human population.”

Furthermore, the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. Or as the report says, “Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)…exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases.” That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, as the effect of more and more CO2 ultimately becomes negligible as CO2 concentration grows. Maybe that is why even with many times more CO2 in the atmosphere in the deep past, there was no catastrophic global warming.

The Obama Administration is busily at work on a project to define what it is calling “the social cost of carbon.” But the only documented effect of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide so far is the resulting increased agricultural output, valued in one study at $1.3 trillion. The Obama Administration is effectively conducting a cost-benefit analysis with no consideration of the benefits. Note that this project is being conducted on a planet populated by what is known as “carbon-based” life forms. That includes plants, animals, and marine life.

The biggest problem with the catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming fantasy is that it is very costly for the economy. It is already delaying the Keystone Pipeline, which is privately financed infrastructure that would produce thousands of good paying jobs. Should be a no-brainer. The Administration’s policies are also sharply restricting the production of oil and gas on federally controlled lands. Then there is the Administration’s War on Coal, which threatens thousands of more jobs.

Perhaps most importantly, reliable supplies of low cost energy powerfully promote economic growth. Already burgeoning supplies of inexpensive natural gas resulting from the fracking revolution on state and private lands are stimulating a budding revival of American manufacturing. But the whole point of the EPA’s global warming regulation would be to impose a cost wedge on the traditional carbon based energy sources that have powered the industrial revolution – coal, oil and natural gas.

Alternative energy from wind, solar, even biofuels is inherently more costly because the energy in wind, sunrays, corn, etc. is much more diffuse, so more expensive to collect in usable form. Moreover, these alternative energy sources are inherently unreliable, because sometimes the wind does not blow, and the sun does not shine. So back up traditional fossil fuel sources are still needed, which further adds to the costs. This will all result in higher costs for electricity, the fundamental power source for the modern, consumer based economy.

posted March 02, 2014 11:25 AM            

I don't know if you just listen to stupid people or if you make this up.

Check the facts please.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html

posted March 02, 2014 01:35 PM            

He simply seems to think that because opposition exists that it must be inherently valid. It doesn't seem to matter how well it's been proven false. He was the same on the subject of vaccination. He's contrarian for the sake of being contrarian as it makes him feel as if he's got an independent mind. He also puts a lot of stock in faith over science. He believes his faith is stronger than the material evidence, though he has engaged in trying to make the scientific side out as religious (which obviously doesn't make any sense whatsoever). Recently, he ironically was concerned about the dying out of bees, because he could see the harm that would come to our way of life if they were to become extinct. Yet, anyone similarly concerned about the planet is an "alarmist," because there has to be a negative label put on everything with which Conservatives disagree.

posted March 02, 2014 02:27 PM            

It just makes me really frustrated. I don't understand how you can come to the conclusions that you do, Randall. Your mindset doesn't make sense to me at all.

posted March 02, 2014 05:38 PM            

In the 1950s the British realized that the famous london "peasoup" fogs were actually smog. Smoke creating fuels were banned and those fogs all but disappeared.

China has long ignored pollution in favour of "catching up" industrially to the "developed" world. Now they have surpassed us all...in poisoned air.

Warming or not, the Keystone and other pollution creators need to be phased out, not increased.

posted March 03, 2014 01:00 PM            

I've been exposed to all manner of skepticism right here. That's not a valid complaint. Every time I've looked into any proposition that attempts to explain away the science, I find that the scientists have already tackled the skeptical theory. They address every single thing anyone comes up with, and they've been at it for years.

We are in the range of models projections. It's false to claim that the models suggest that we should be warmer.

It's not about money or control. I still think you're short on proving such a thing. I can see where carbon credits looks like the proof, but are they? The goal there is providing the cheapest way to reduce emissions, essentially those firms willing and able to cut back their emissions can sell off the deficit in pollution that they've accrued to businesses that require polluting more. Is it too much to regulate the air quality? We have food safety standards. We have drinking water standards. We don't generally allow businesses to put the public in danger, right? No other public safety issue is treated as a conspiracy for control in the way this issue is. The CEO of Apple just told investors to take their money out of Apple if they deny global warming. Go to any list of the "greenest" companies, and look at their business results. I think you'll find overwhelming success. So the matter of control is really super questionable.

quote:

---

There has been no increase in warming for 17.5 years. None of the models predicted that.

---

In 1988, NASA's Hansen gave a set of projections, and we're well within the projections. That was 26 years ago that he gave his projections. These are the oldest projections on the books. Scenario B

The article: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ or: http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=3974

This is just something you keep telling yourself that is materially untrue. There's no basis for claiming an overwhelming lack of model credibility.

posted March 03, 2014 03:50 PM            

Actually, cooling is rather predictably linked to sun activity. So, when it occurs, watch the IPCC scurry about trying to explain it.

posted March 03, 2014 04:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Perhaps my impression is wrong, but I have never considered any of the dire predictions to be within an imminent timeline. I don't think major shifts happen that fast.

---

Neither have I. But I do believe that the longer we wait to implement change the more painful and hard those changes are eventually going to be for us. The longer we wait, the worse the consequences are going to be too. I'm not about to cry doomsday, but humanity's inability to think and plan ahead of time really baffles me. It's like we're generation denial. Litter and pollution everywhere. Personally I hope fusion technology is going to make the transition easier. But that's still decades away.

What is going to happen when climate change migration starts setting on a large scale is something I'd rather not think about. Imagine the Maldives. Thank goodness they are saving money from the tourism industry and are putting some in a fund to help their citizens. They have even entered talks with India and Australia to move their people there. Still, what a shame. Eventually, they're going to "sink" completely.

posted March 03, 2014 04:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Actually, cooling is rather predictably linked to sun activity.

---

posted March 03, 2014 04:44 PM            

And at the creeping rate of warming we have seen, we have nothing to worry about. There is no reason to think less than a degree will affect anything, especially since the planet has been much warmer in the past, and we should expect there to be warming since we are cycling out of an ice age. If we had runaway warming of several (global) degrees, I could see the reason for alarm. But despite a doubling of CO2, there has been no such runaway warming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Perhaps my impression is wrong, but I have never considered any of the dire predictions to be within an imminent timeline. I don't think major shifts happen that fast.

---

posted March 03, 2014 08:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
How do carbon credits regulate air quality? I can pollute with impunity so long as I buy the credits! Isn't this what you Liberals complain about all the time about big business? Carbon credits only serve to make the likes of Gore and company filthy rich.

---

posted March 04, 2014 12:04 PM            

The "if" is for various scenarios. There is no scenario where this warming is NOT the fastest it's ever been.

If global temperatures rise 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next century, the rate will be about 10 times faster than what's been seen before, said Christopher Field, one of the scientists on the study. Keeping the temperature increase that small will require aggressive mitigation, he said.

This is the most conservative estimate.

If the Earth stays on its current course without reversing greenhouse gas emissions, and global temperatures rise 5 degrees Celsius, as scientists say is possible, the pace of change will be at least 50 times and possibly 100 times swifter than what's occurred in the past, Field said. The numbers are imprecise because the comparison is to an era 55 million years ago, he said.

This is the estimate based upon what they're seeing.

The title is not misleading at all.

quote:

---

How do carbon credits regulate air quality? I can pollute with impunity so long as I buy the credits! Isn't this what you Liberals complain about all the time about big business? Carbon credits only serve to make the likes of Gore and company filthy rich.

---

I wish you'd dig in a little instead of always acting like you can't figure things out for yourself.

posted March 04, 2014 12:38 PM            

Warming fastest since dawn of civilization, study shows - Mar 7, 2013 (Shuan Marcott, a climate scientist at Oregon State University led the study)

Rate of climate change ‘fastest in 55 million years’ - 5 August 2013 (Scientists from Stanford University)

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows - Nov 13, 2013 (Kevin Cowtan from the University of York and Robert Way from the University of Ottawa)