Knowing the truth about Global Warming. Fire and Rain edition!
Dear friends,
All of you who are running for office or voting for those running for office or just want to have a clue about what is going on need to read this editorial. James Taylor is not the same guy who wrote "Fire and Rain" but he knows a bit about the Sun and the climate. What the IPCC and the CRU have tried to pull off is a scam and the data proves it. Even if the leaked emails and the phony Michael Mann "Hockey Stick" and the I-have-no-training-in-climatology-but-I-invented-the-internet Al Gore's completely boneheaded predictions that didn't happen didn't clue you in, the actual temperature plot of the last ten years should make us all step back and think. Maybe the global warming frenzy was nothing but a political ploy? Maybe it has done a lot of damage to American industry and had a lot to do with higher prices and fewer jobs? So maybe we should elect folks who don't buy this particular version of the Brooklyn Bridge? James Taylor in Forbes Magazine:
Op/Ed
All of you who are running for office or voting for those running for office or just want to have a clue about what is going on need to read this editorial. James Taylor is not the same guy who wrote "Fire and Rain" but he knows a bit about the Sun and the climate. What the IPCC and the CRU have tried to pull off is a scam and the data proves it. Even if the leaked emails and the phony Michael Mann "Hockey Stick" and the I-have-no-training-in-climatology-but-I-invented-the-internet Al Gore's completely boneheaded predictions that didn't happen didn't clue you in, the actual temperature plot of the last ten years should make us all step back and think. Maybe the global warming frenzy was nothing but a political ploy? Maybe it has done a lot of damage to American industry and had a lot to do with higher prices and fewer jobs? So maybe we should elect folks who don't buy this particular version of the Brooklyn Bridge? James Taylor in Forbes Magazine:
Op/Ed
past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.
If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.
There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.
Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.
Which brings us back to the sharp scientific disagreement about whether the earth’s climate is extremely sensitive or merely modestly sensitive to minor variances in the composition of its atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide comprises far less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, we could multiply the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere a full 25 times and it would still equal less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. The alarmists claim that the minor increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 100 years, from roughly 3 parts per 10,000 to roughly 4 parts per 10,000, is causing climate havoc. Real-world temperature data tell us an entirely different story.
The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all.
Oh well, back to the old drawing board…
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News
~~~~~~~~~
CO2 is actually plant food. Right now we have approximately 380 PPM (parts per million) in the atmosphere and an increase will help plants grow bigger while requiring less water. Furthermore, if the temperatures do rise then growing season will be lengthened, the practicial limits North and South for raising crops would move outward and we MIGHT be a little less prone to tornadoes, as it is the collision of hot air with cold fronts that spawn them. The relationship between cooler temperatures and tornado activity is still under study but the preliminary reports indicate hotter summers have fewer massive storms. Even if that is not the case, a warming planet is helpful to all and carbon in the atmosphere is welcome news for plants. So if the globe does begin to warm again, don't buy an electric car, go outside and plant more tomatoes!
If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.
There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.
Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.
Which brings us back to the sharp scientific disagreement about whether the earth’s climate is extremely sensitive or merely modestly sensitive to minor variances in the composition of its atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide comprises far less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, we could multiply the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere a full 25 times and it would still equal less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. The alarmists claim that the minor increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 100 years, from roughly 3 parts per 10,000 to roughly 4 parts per 10,000, is causing climate havoc. Real-world temperature data tell us an entirely different story.
The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all.
Oh well, back to the old drawing board…
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News
~~~~~~~~~
CO2 is actually plant food. Right now we have approximately 380 PPM (parts per million) in the atmosphere and an increase will help plants grow bigger while requiring less water. Furthermore, if the temperatures do rise then growing season will be lengthened, the practicial limits North and South for raising crops would move outward and we MIGHT be a little less prone to tornadoes, as it is the collision of hot air with cold fronts that spawn them. The relationship between cooler temperatures and tornado activity is still under study but the preliminary reports indicate hotter summers have fewer massive storms. Even if that is not the case, a warming planet is helpful to all and carbon in the atmosphere is welcome news for plants. So if the globe does begin to warm again, don't buy an electric car, go outside and plant more tomatoes!
A version of this post is also found at NWI Politics blog.
Image by Marion Doss via Flickr
Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.