Global Warming Stopped? Say it Ain't So!

Interesting editorial by Lorie Goldstein.
German climate scientists have just published a study in the respected science journal Nature suggesting global warming has stopped and will not resume until at least 2015.

Stopped? Say it Ain't So!
Based on new, computer-generated climate models that factor in natural ocean currents, the researchers conclude: "Our results suggest that global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic (man-made) warming."

But, it gets better.
Since there has actually been no global warming since 1998...

What? 1998? No global warming at all in the past ten years? I seem to recall pointing out a similar fact once before.
What does this newfound lack of global warming mean for our dear old planet?
that means there would be an almost two-decade span where concentrations of GHG emissions, most notably carbon dioxide, continued to intensify in the atmosphere, without global temperatures following suit.

So, basically, if there is any global warming, climate change scientists don't actually know whether or not it is caused by emissions, much less whether or not it is the fault of mankind.
It figures.
Looks like Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth (which never forced him to make any changes in is own lifestyle, by the way) is more like a Convenient Lie. No idea why he actually bothered to tell it, but I would put my money on money and the fact he makes quite a bit buying energy "credits" from himself.
"Not long ago, anyone who looked at the global annual temperature data and disrespectfully pointed out that it might actually be significant that the world hasn't become warmer since 1998, was dismissed as foolish and accused of seeing what they wanted to see . . . Then, if they had the effrontery to point out that even the U.K.'s MET (British Meteorological Office) agreed that the annual data between 2001-7 was an impeccable flat line, they were told they were completely wrong as such things were obviously only year-on-year variability...

Read that again.
An impeccable flat line.
Meanwhile, we've had not one but two Earth Hours and there are people out there who want to have Earth Hour at the beginning of every month in order to save the planet. (Note: You'll need a Facebook account to see that group.)
Speaking of which...
And this is just an aside, did you know that Earth Hour has a website?
Are they serious?
In case you are wondering why I am pointing this out, let me make it abundantly clear that web servers are by no mean energy efficient. One machine is not a big deal. An entire farm running 24/7 is a different story. Furthermore, a server room should always be air conditioned and well-ventilated, as large numbers of computers tend to generate a lot of heat... and that's not good for them.
The Earth Hour site is hosted by Segment Publishing. Check out their Facilities description:
The power systems are designed to be able to run uninterrupted, even in the unlikely event of a total power failure. Our servers are fed via conditioned UPS power, that will run should power fail. The UPS features maximum redundancy (N+1) with instant failover should the primary UPS fail. In the event of an extended power failure, the on-site diesel generator can run indefinitely. The generator is constantly tested to ensure it will function when most needed.
The datacentre is meticulously tidy. All the air within is circulated and filtered every 90 seconds to remove dust particles and any contaminants. The Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning system features N+1 redundancy with a duplicate system ready to take over should the primary system fail.

So, in other words, the servers hosting the Earth Hour website are almost definitely NOT solar powered. They are paying good money for state of the art equipment that uses plenty of electricity.
Now, I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but if these people were REALLY concerned about the planet, they'd live like the Amish and would shun technology. After all, emissions are causing global warming, right?
I'd like to ask the Earth Hour guys what they are being paid and whether or not they bother to keep up with the latest research on climate change. My guess is probably not. A hole in the great global warming scam would put these people out of a job.
Or maybe not.
The lack of global warming over the past ten years hasn't really put a damper on their efforts.


Anonymous said...

Quite the source you have there.

If there's anyone I trust less than YOU, with even less of background in science, to provide third-hand scientific findings interpreted in an editorial, it would be Lorrie Goldstein. I suspect he wouldn't even last through a first year physics course, and given how often I've seen science reporters screw up their stories, why would Goldstein's opinion even matter to anyone?

Well, I guess it would matter when it's all you have.

Ruth said...

It's an editorial. I found it interesting.
Now, do you have any legitimate argument to make, or are you just going to hurl unfounded insults, Mr. Anonymous?

Herman said...

Just wanted to point out a statement made by one of the researchers that conducted this study...

"Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: 'The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that.'

"He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away." [emphasis mine]

So regardless of whether anyone believes that global warming exists, Goldstein did not report on all of Keenlyside's relevant commentary (just one snippet) to provide a more balanced view.

On a more general note, I really dislike it when reporters don't do their due diligence in properly researching a story, or instead provide sensationalist reporting.

(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml)

Listed on BlogsCanada Blogarama - The Blog Directory Powered by Blogger FeedBurner Blogging Tories
Southern Ontario Conservatives