AGW Continues to Unravel, But Will It Matter?

The two candidates for president have outlined their belief in AGW and how they’d fight it, but thankfully the global climate situation isn’t cooperating. From Australia, Andrew Bolt brings us this update:

Last year’s summer melt had been so fierce that climate scientists warned that the warmed seas gave us a 50-50 chance of an ice-free Arctic this summer.

“It’s hard to see how the system may bounce back,” fretted Washington University’s Ignatius Rigor.

Countless headlines around the world blared this latest “proof ” of global warming (which, sshhh, actually halted in 1998). The ABC and Fairfax flew reporter Marian Wilkinson up to file scary reports from an ice-breaker, declaring: “Here you can see climate change happening before your eyes.”

Eco-explorer Lewis Gordon Pugh even announced he’d paddle a kayak all the way to the Pole to draw attention to this terrifying loss of ice.

But, oops. Pugh actually had to quit paddling when he found 1000km more ice in front of him than he’d expected.

Indeed, there was at least 9 per cent more Artic ice this summer than last, and the refreeze so far this autumn is so extraordinary there’s a third more ice than there was this time a year ago.

In fact, Lorne Gunter has noticed something:

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.

Some of what he noticed included this:

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.

And other scientists were filling in intentional blanks left by the AGW crowd which were inconvenient to their argument:

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.

So welcome back the Medieval Warm Period to the fullness of climate history.

And CO2?

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.”

Add this as the final nail weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville:

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.”

There’s a nice little chart at the link demonstrating their point.

All-in-all, the scientific community seems to be coming to its senses concerning the hoax of AGW. The question, of course, is will special-interest driven politicians take the time to review the new data starting to stream in, or, like the herd driven animals they are, ignore it for a “damn the torpedoes, my mind is made up” approach to expensive and unnecessary “solutions” to a non-existent problem?

Unfortunately, I’m beginning to lean toward the latter because of something I once considered a silver lining in the financial mess. My thinking was that such economy busting solutions would be put on the back burner in times of economic fragility. But now I’m reconsidering that belief.

What will be the entity to establish a “carbon market”? Why the government of course. And what entity stands to reap windfall revenues from such a market? Uh, yeah, the same one.

What entity feels they need more revenues in order to “spread the wealth?”

The perfect economic storm is setting itself up, and if government pursues this “solution” what we’ve suffered to this point economically may only seem to have been a squall line in comparison.

[Crossposted at QandO]

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend