‘Let the cold times roll’ 9

Deroy Murdock writes at ScrippsNews:

Despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled 0.74 degrees F since former Vice President Al Gore released ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in 2006.”

Earth’s temperatures fall even as the planet spins within what global-warmists consider a thickening cloud of toxic carbon dioxide.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory at Mauna Loa, Hawaii consistently and reliably has measured CO2 for the last 50 years. CO2 concentrations have risen steadily for a half-century.

For December 1958, the Laboratory reported an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 314.67 parts per million (PPM). Flash forward to December 1998, about when global cooling reappeared. CO2 already had increased to 366.87 PPM. By December 2008, CO2 had advanced to 385.54 PPM, a significant 5.088 percent growth in one decade.

This capsizes the carbon-phobic global-warmist argument. For Earth’s temperatures to sink while CO2 rises contradicts global warming as thoroughly as learning that firefighters can battle blazes by spraying them with gasoline.

So, to defeat so-called “global warming,” there is no need for the $864 billion Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Kyoto Protocols, elaborate new regulations, or United Nations guidelines. Instead, let the cold times roll.

It is one thing to have a national debate about a serious problem, with adults differing over which solution might work best. Reasonable people, for instance, can dispute whether growing federal involvement would heal or inflame our healthcare system’s serious maladies.

But as so-called “global warming” proves fictional, those who would shackle the economy with taxes and regulations to fight mythology increasingly resemble deinstitutionalized derelicts on an urban street corner, wildly swatting at their own imaginary monsters.

Posted under Climate, Commentary by Jillian Becker on Friday, July 10, 2009

Tagged with , , , , ,

This post has 9 comments.

Permalink
  • thermonuclearman

    I certainly agree with you on GW politics, Roger. Believe me, I’m on the skeptics’ side there. I don’t fully agree that it represents a desire for world socialism. Fortunately for us, I don’t ever think we will ever have to endure the human hell of socialism. But things like penalizing aviation and transport (when according to the IPCC they’re only responsible for 3% of emissions) really gets on everyone’s nerves, including mine. There’s no other alternative to replacing coal plants with nuclear plants. Burning coal is by far the biggest emitter. Anything governments say or do otherwise – particularly the highly offensive “people will have to make drastic changes to their lifestyles” (yeah, that’s gonna be great for the economy) – is just utterly wicked and worthless.

  • roger in florida

    thermo,
    As a society we seem to be in an impasse regarding what, if anything, to do about GW, or even to agree whether it actually exists. This is very unfortunate because if GW is actually occurring due to GG, then it obviously would be prudent to do something about it. There are many relatively simple measures such as; stop burning coal and replace coal fired boilers with nuclear reactors.
    However it seems to me and I suspect to many skeptics that the GW issue has been hijacked by a particularly obnoxious political sect who seek to use this issue to force many other unrelated societal changes on us. Henry Waxman is an example of this, these are socialists who are intent on the destruction of capitalism and the liberty that is an integral part of our free property owning society. They wish to install in it’s place a collective society that will effectively destroy all freedom, individuality and self direction with a stultifying tyranny. There are others such as Al Gore who are just opportunists out for personal gain.
    This issue will probably have to stew for a while until the evidence either way is conclusive, that has the potential to be a disastrous course.

  • thermonuclearman

    Roger,

    The IPCC said that present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years and certainly higher than in the last 800,000. There’s no evidence that the usual drivers of climate variation – the Earth’s natural geological rhythm – are driving it now. And just because human activity didn’t drive climate change in the past, it wouldn’t follow that it isn’t driving it now (that would be a nonsequitur). Of course, I completely agreed with you about nuclear power and coal (China’s coal smog kills 400,000 people every year).

    Jillian,

    Unfortunately, those two articles – Professor Plimer in particular – were just repeats of the same old skeptic myths, most if not all of which answered here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

  • thermonuclearman – here is an article by a scientist who utterly rejects your contentions about CO2

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

    and here is another, doing the same, by one of the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report!

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

  • roger in florida

    thermo,
    Then how did the Earth ever cool down again? If CO2 causes heating and CO2 levels are increasing then heating would continue. What we do absolutely know is that Earth’s temperature has been varying for ever, and that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past than now without associated heating.
    As I understand the situation the source of the heat energy is the Sun, we can all agree on that, right?
    But the energy output of the Sun varies so the Earth’s temperature also varies (there are other factors such as the Earth’s orbital path and the tilt of the Earth on it’s axis). The intensity of the radiation from the Sun striking the Earth causes variations in Earth’s temperature, this will cause CO2 levels to rise, however as solar radiation levels fall the temperature falls and we will see this reflected in a lower level of CO2 (and other gases).
    Having said all that, it is definitely not a good idea to emit poisonous gas into the atmosphere, I don’t mean just CO2 (CO2 is largely benign). If you have ever studied the exhaust of fossil fueled power stations you know what I mean. I am a great supporter of nuclear fission energy, there are no significant emissions into the atmosphere, true there is waste but we can manage that, and nuclear energy is available 24/7/365, whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, or not.
    Unfortunately there are at present no viable alternatives to personal transportation powered by petroleum products, so gas emissions will continue, but we do not need to be overly concerned by this, the market will provide consumption discipline and provide alternatives through higher prices.

  • thermonuclearman

    Heating causes CO2 to rise and CO2 causes temperature to rise.

    It is a misconception that it can only be one or the other.

    Increased heating causes the oceans to emit more CO2; and when there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth absorbs more heat

  • roger in florida

    The two of you ought to be a little more skeptical, I recommend:
    http://www.junkscience.com/
    Also see the results of study of the vostock ice core. There is a correlation between CO2 and heating; the heating causes an increase in CO2. The enviro wackos have it completely backwards.

    As for Al Gore, he is nothing but a professional political hack with no science background whatsoever, an intellectual cripple who failed divinity studies (couldn’t even get a passing grade in BS). Same with Gingrich, who got all excited about hydrogen but without studying the subject and so made a complete fool of himself.
    These people are preying on fears, just like priests in any religion do. Be very wary of them and their kind.

  • thermonuclearman

    I agree, Alejandro. This graph explains it: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1964_2008.gif

    Clearly, there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature and, equally clearly, drawing conclusions from one single piece of the jigsaw presents golden opportunities for fallacies to flourish.

    However, I do tend to regard Newt Gingrich as more of an authority on climate science than Al Gore (and no, Newt isn’t a skeptic)

  • Alejandro

    2006-2009 is only three years. In fact, this is tiny when compared to the vast correlation between man-made CO2 emissions and temperature increase. We are talking about correlations that are visible over a span of one-hundred twenty years, not three.

    I strongly suggest that this website open its mind to the true science behind global warming. Your sources misguide you. Hence, I suggest that you look at other sources like the IPCC or, even better, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, as it offers a comprehensive, easily accessible look into the true science behind carbon dioxide.