Global Warming: On Hold?

outdoor-thermometerAs temperatures fail to meet alarmist predictions, and ever-increasing dire warnings of catastrophic, accelerating runaway warming are being refuted by simple observation, the global warming apologists keep rolling out the excuses. Here’s an article from Discovery News.

By Michael Reilly

For those who have endured this winter’s frigid temperatures and today’s heavy snowstorm in the Northeast, the concept of global warming may seem, well, almost wishful.

But climate is known to be variable — a cold winter, or a few strung together doesn’t mean the planet is cooling. Still, according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.

Earth’s climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.

“This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn’t have one.”

Read the rest of this article at Discovery News.

  • It’s been chilly, but the true believers will tell you that it’s cold because of global warming. The Cardinals lost to the Steelers because of global warming. You ran out of syrup before you ran out of pancakes because of global warming.

    Whatever they can do to raise money.

  • Neil F.

    I am no scientist. I believed in AGW for a while. Until a certain politician began raising the alarm, saying the debate is over, the science is settled, and making other outrageous claims to scare people. I said to myself “wait a minute. What is this guy’s angle?”
    One of the first things I found was Friends of Science http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3 which is basically mostly Canadian scientists who are against signing the Kyoto treaty. In it I found a list of scientists that refute AGW http://web.archive.org/web/20060529122738/www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm
    These are not kooks, these are climate and earth sciences experts. At the top of the list is Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. These are not slouches.
    And when I look at the predictions of the AGW alarmists and compare them to what the reputable climate and earth sciences scientists say, it’s a no-brainer, the alarmists are not just wrong, they are absolutely 180 degrees out of phase with reality.
    They said that the climate was reaching a tipping point, and that we were facing a global catastrophe in the 21st century. But now they are backpeddling feverishly with pieces like the above article. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty can see by the actual record that the alarmism claims have not come true. Not even a little bit.
    This article is what I call CYA (for those that don’t know, that means cover your a**) for alarmists trying to hold on to whatever credibility they once enjoyed. And of course is a perfect excuse to keep the cash flowing by saying it requires more research.

  • Mark S.

    I am no scientist either … however I do know that the earth’s been warming up as of late. Like for the past 12,000 years or so! And it seems to warm up and cool off all the time if you look at the best evidence we have regarding past temaperature variations. And I’m kinda glad it did warm up because the last Ice Age ended and since I live in the Northeast, typing this would be rather difficult if I had 2 miles of glacial ice over my head.
    And does any rational person with even a mild sense of curiosity about global warming take Al Gore seriously? I mean just ask some basic questions about the earth’s temperature and c/o 2 content,get the information with a search engine and see for yourself. It just burns me ups to hear him and others say that the debate is over. Are they kidding?
    The only ones who believe in the global warming catastrophe scenario and that we can do something about it are then ones that either want or need to believe in it. Any evidence that weakens the case is either ignored or treated as bunk science from dubious or tainted sources.
    The scariest thing regarding a temperature increase in my opinion is melting ice that freshens and chills the North Atlantic leading to the end of the Gulf Stream Current and the begining of the next Ice Age.
    Even a litttle global warming would look pretty good at that point.

  • Neil F.

    Mark S.: Right on!

  • My article “Global warming or global cooling?”intimidated many of Al Gore’s Kool-aid drinkers to rephrase their theme “Global Warming” to “Climate change”. Changing the name of their theme doesn’t meant that they changed their thinking. Their new theme relates to their initiatives of wind power, and electric automobiles. Ironically, these initiatives will be the cause of climate change!

    In accordance with the first law of thermal dynamics, energy can not be created or destroyed. However, energy can be converted to another form. It is this unwariness of energy conservation by Al Gore and his uninformed followers that has perpetuated the alarmist notion of “global warming”.

    Let’s analyze wind power…
    Wind is created by the potential difference of two or more atmospheric area conditions. One area being

  • Let’s analyze windmills…
    A typical windmill is made up by an electric producing generator powered by three attached metal blades that are as big as a large size tour bus. By attempting to visualize the movement of three buses, one could imagine how much energy would be required. The amount of foot pound of wind energy will be converted to kinetic energy, and only 75% of that can be converted to electrical energy. That converted energy is no longer wind power, therefore, we have detracted the amount needed to fulfill the natural wind movement determined by the potential difference. This obstruction will cause a man-made undetermined climatic condition. This may alter the established natural habitat and geographic evolution in specific areas.

    Example:
    By hanging a piece of tissue about (5) five feet away and letting out a blast of air, we can see that we can easily make the tissue move. Again we are going to repeat the above steps, but this time we will attempt to move the tissue at the same time as spinning a paper or plastic wind mill with the same blast of air. Much of our wind power was consumed by the wind mill, and the tissue had less movement, if any.

    Now, lets talk about electric powered automobiles…

    We keep hearing how electric powered automobiles will decrease pollution, and save energy.
    Here again, the laws of conservation of energy have been ignored.
    Question number one:
    From what form of energy was electrical energy converted?
    Fossil fuel? Nuclear? Or what? No matter from the energy source, we can never harvest 100% of the original potential energy. A minimum of 25% will be wasted during transformation, storage, and transportation (remember the other law “nothing is free!’). How about the expense and the effects of pollution from the implementation of construction, production, conversion, transportation, and storage of the potential electric energy? How can we then say that the electric powered transportation vehicle will be more efficient and more “environmentally friendly”?

    Question number two:
    What are we going to do with the solid, and extremely toxic chemical waste of batteries, isolation materials, cables, and the additional necessary contributing metals (copper, aluminum etc.) and lacquers? Aren’t our landfills at a catastrophic limit already?

  • Global Warming and Climate Change is the biggest environmental issue that we face these days. the long term effects of these environmental changes to a nations economy is quite damaging. there would be a shortage in food supply as well as on water supply too.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.