Let's examine the flip side of global warming -- global cooling.
Inconveniently, while Al Gore was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, 2007 became the seventh straight year in which there's been no global warming, despite increasing concentrations of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
And for Y2Kyoto believers, 2008 isn't looking good.
In fact, not only was 2007 cooler than 1998, it wasn't statistically different from any year going back to 2001. None came close to 1998. How many media outlets which gave the original story such prominence will correct the record? We'll see.
Apparently, Goldstein skipped science class, maybe all classes for that matter, because he uses 1998 as the baseline, from which all other years are to be judged. Never mind the simple fact, every year since 1998 has been statistically warmer than the global mean average:
Yes, the world is cooling because the average rise in global temperature was only .5 degrees since 2001, as compared with the .6 degress recorded in 1998. Let's extrapolate Goldstein's tortured logic. If you were investing your money for the last ten years, and you recorded a 10% profit in 1998, but only a 8% profit in all the years since, does that mean you have lost money? Exactly, you ignorant dipshit of the highest order.
Anyways, back to harsh reality that will never see the light of day in one of Goldstein's moronic columns:
But a new study released today, based on some of the most extensive measurements to date of the continent's ice mass, presents a worrisome development: Antarctica's ice sheet is shrinking, at a rate that increased dramatically from 1996 to 2006.
"Over the time period of our survey, the ice sheet as a whole was certainly losing mass, and the mass loss increased by 75 per cent in 10 years," the study said.
"I see that as the main driver for the change in ice mass. And this means that we are not in a natural cycle but in something that is related to global warming or global climate change, whichever you want to call it," he said.
What do scientists know?
12 comments:
I couldn't believe it either. Moreover, its not necessarily about "Global warming" its about "climate change" meaning that there are going to be a lot more wacky weather patterns as a result, not just a warming of the planet. Even if "global warming" is a myth, is not reducing our energy consumption, less pollution etc not a good thing? Even more so, a sustainable environment, doesnt mean going into recession etc. These dinosaurs are frustrating and dangerous when they have a platform.
Steve,
I don't argue with your logic, but you seem to have missed Goldstein's point.
He is saying that the greenhouse heating science being used to bang the drum and pressure the planet into dramatic shifts in practice has not been hitting the predictive mark the way the media and supporters are claiming it to have.
He appears to be saying that if the modelling is not giving accurate readings, than perhaps we should be looking for other covariates.
La Nina, and the North Atlantic Oscillation are not words I am hearing about from David Suzuki, Al Gore or you.
Yet this appears to be implicated in climate variance that we are seeing.
I think you were correct in responding intelligently to his column, I don't think your attack on his intelligence was called for.
Tomm
Global warming activists have good reason to draw conclusions from inaccurate data and poor modelling - Al Gore himself has about a hundred million good reasons and counting.
There is no good reason for any of the rest of us to believe these guys whether they're for or against global warming - except that global warming promoters want bags of our money through taxes.
Dramatic climate changes have occured long before humans even knew how to build a cooking fire, I call BS on the activists.
Did'ja hear that folks? "anonymous" calls BS on the global warming activists. Because of taxes or some stupid thing.
Thanks for posting!
What bothers me particularly is when summarizing the denier position and their government of choice, you essentially end up with this policy . . .
"We are extremely concerned and will implement real actions to tackle this non-existent phenomenon which humans cannot impact."
Schizophrenic much?
Well, there is some evidence that global temperatures have not increased since 1998. If this turns out to be true, it could be due to random variation in temperatures, measurement error, or because global warming has not been happening in this decade. If it has not been happening this decade, it could of course resume at some point. That fact that the world is warmer now than 30 years ago does not mean that it could not be cooling in this decade, so Goldstein's logic is not insane.
While I think that the preponderance of evidence supports IPCCs (note: not Al Gore's) position, I think it is important not to get locked in to a viewpoint: this debate should be about scientific fact, after all. Surely, if the average global temperature were to remain the same for, eg, another 20 years, everyone
would then have to admin that there is something seriously wrong with climate change theory. It is also logical to regard the stable global temperature of the last decade as a point against (although by no means a refutation of) climate change theory.
Your example of the investments is wrong. The temperature anomaly is the total value, not the annual change. For a simple example, consider your house. If it was worth $200,000 in 1990, $300,000 in 1998, and $280,000 in 2007, would you have lost money since 1998? Of course the answer is yes. Would you say, at the end of 2007, that house prices are declining? You might, or you might say that house prices have declined since 1998, and leave it at that.
mark
Your logic is flawed. The way it works, if the average price of a house was 200 000 when you bought it, and one year 1998, it was worth 240000, does that mean because it is worth 230000 today that you lost money?? No, you still are 30000 above average, and that's how a mean average works, you don't just pick a year and compare everything from such a small sample. The only question anyone need concern themselves- has the global temperature average been above normal since 1998. The answer an unequivocal YES.
BTW, the findings in Antartica completely support the temperature data. People who say we need to keep an open mind, as though the jury is still out, present a false choice, and it says more about their inability to accept what stares them in the face. There are skeptics, and then there are people with an agenda, who seem to lack basic common sense. On most arguments, I appreciate points of views, on this topic I have no time for dipshits like Goldstein, people like him are like a small rip on a sail, they just slow us down.
The question is not whether the temperature is above "normal", which it clearly is, if normal is defined as the 1960-91 average (or any other well-documented period), but whether it is continuing to increase. If the choice were between restricting carbon emissions and having temperatures stay at their current levels, most people would choose not to restrict. The real danger lies in temperatures continuing to increase over the next 100 years, rather than staying at their current, somewhat elevated, levels.
You have to look at the trends, and not one year as indicative. The graph I posted shows the trend, in simplistic terms, and it suggests further warming, which is supported by the science on the ground.
I agree. I would expect the temperature pattern to return to the long term trend. But if it doesn't in, say, the next decade or two, then the science would have been shown to be flawed. That doesn't mean we should wait another 20 years to do anything about it, though.
mark
I agree, if in 20-30years we see no change, then the worst case scenarios are questionable.
Post a Comment