Unabashed

Models are now suggesting a cooling phase of the Earth’s environment, something I’ve been suggesting was bound to happen for a while now. It’s interesting, though, having heard the warming mantra being chanted for years now, with no talk of even the possibility of cooling, to read quotes of scientists saying:

We’ve always known that the climate varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade.

Really. Now I know that the primary chanters are representatives of media outlets who get a fat pat on the back from their bosses any time they successfully effectuate a worldwide panic, but I’ve done a lot of digging and reading about global warming in the past few years and I haven’t even sniffed at an authentic scientific opinion that the warming trend would so much as slow down until the surface of Earth resembles that of Venus and the human race is dead and gone. I’ve seen a lot of speculation about what might be done to fix it, but nothing that would suggest anything other than permanence.

You might say, “But they’re scientists, they take it for granted that the climate will fluctuate.” Sure, but why didn’t they point that out during any one of the kajillion interviews we’ve seen? Why didn’t one of them say: “the warming trend might not be permanent” or “it’s possible that a cooling trend might interrupt global warming briefly” if that’s the case? Or maybe they did, but the media outlet conducting the interview omitted that line in favor of touching off the beloved ratings-inducing panic. That’s not the Gross Scientific Failure I’m referring to in the title of this post, that’s just an irritating habit of the media (gotta love that widespread panic!). But if we read this article carefully, it also might be thought of as a collective effort of the scientific community to convince our policymakers to change their policies:

In the long term, radiative forcing (the Earth’s energy balance) dominates. But it’s important for policymakers to realise the pattern.

Reading the commentary in this article makes me seethe, though when I first saw the headline I thought I was about to read a rather self-affirming article that might clear up some of the questions I’ve been asking. Well, I’ll give them props for their carefully-crafted comments, because it’s very clear that all they’re wanting to do is keep the worlds’ eyes on the global warming ball. Essentially, that’s a good idea though, if global warming does end up being the scourge they predict it will be. But me, I’m still not convinced, even with all the scientists in the world chanting in tune with Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyrie: “Global WARming, global WARming, global WAR-MING, global war…” As I’ve said before, all this global warming doom and gloom could have been cleared up a long time ago if, rather than a War on Drugs, the U.S. government had instituted a War on Pollution. And even then, folks, we might still be trying to figure out why the climate has been changing (answer: because it does). Which brings me to the Gross Scientific Failure bit:

For the record: I’m not saying global warming won’t have disastrous, long-term effects. I’m only saying that we little folk aren’t seeing the entire picture. The summers have been hotter, the weather more violent, and it’s really easy to accredit all that to global warming. And I can even commend them on one point, they who preach the global warming sermon with the intent of staunching the flow of garbage into our atmosphere (I like to breathe. They tell me that’s harder to do now than it was a few hundred years ago). If only it was more effective. But it seems to me that the scientists aren’t seeing the entire picture, either:

Modelling of climatic events in the oceans is difficult, simply because there is relatively little data on some of the key processes, such as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) - sometimes erroneously known as the Gulf Stream - which carries heat northwards in the Atlantic.

Only within the last few years have researchers begun systematically deploying mobile floats and tethered buoys that will, in time, tell us how this circulation is changing.

So. There aren’t any deep-water monitoring stations in the Atlantic. To which I ask the question: “Why the hell don’t we have any deep-water monitoring stations in the Atlantic?” We’ve got a rover on Mars for cripe’s sake. We’re collecting close-up data of Venus and Saturn and all the moons we can photograph, but we don’t track the mood of the single largest environmental aggressor on our own home planet? WTF? It seems to me that the oceans impact the global climate in a way that is only exceeded by the sun itself. Billions of tons of freezing water is pouring into the oceans by melting polar ice caps and glaciers, causing ocean temperatures to drop dramatically, but the only method we have to model climate change is based on atmospheric calculations. This may well be the day that it all turned, and the threat of global warming becomes the potentially equally disastrous global cooling (which is sometimes called an ice age).

Whenever I write about something that has magnificent (or at least significant) technological promise, I often end the post with the comment: “The Singularity is near,” referring to the idea that at some point in our future the worldwide culture will fundamentally change in an alarmingly rapid fashion due to technological advancements. But when I read articles like the one linked up in this post, it makes me think that the Singularity is very, very far away, or, worse, that the Singularity won’t be affected by technological advancements, but by the world’s climate, an ecological nightmare.

This is gross scientific failure on a gargantuan scale. Correct me if I’m wrong.

written by Matt Mitchell \\ tags: cooling, global, Ice Age, ocean, temperature, warming

In response to my earlier post about Global Warming, commenter JohnnyB pointed out the obvious:

Gotta consider that the ocean is very big and very deep. The temp near the bottom of the ocean is near freezing without the help of melting ice, so there would be no net change.

In fact, Johnny, I have considered that fact, but we’re only talking about a couple of degrees of water temp which can have a tremendous impact on the world climate. And this is exactly why I asked the question in that previous post: What if climate change–Global Warming–is in fact cooling the world’s oceans by dumping massive amounts of glacial melt water into the mix? So I did a little more digging, via Google, and came up with an NPR article in which a NASA scientist who monitors ocean temperatures worldwide is confused by the fact that the oceans’ temperatures have dropped over the last five years.

“There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,” Willis says.

What really astounds me is that, while the article briefly speculates as to where the heat is going (out into space is one theory) nobody even considers the really obvious possibility (to me, at least): that the oceans are rising due to an influx of glacial melt water and are cooling as a result. How can that be missed, or, if it hasn’t been missed, why doesn’t any one speculate about it or even offer to debunk the theory? Are we so focused on the warming aspect of climate change that we’re totally missing the possibility that Global Warming could actually eventually result in Global Cooling?

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it’s also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

Something mysterious indeed. He even points out that the half-inch ocean level increase can be accredited to melt water:

Willis says some of this water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

Basically, the entire article lends credence to my theory without ever speculating about it. Billions of gallons of glacial melt water floods into the ocean and–mysteriously–the ocean mean temperature cools. Stay tuned.  

written by Matt Mitchell \\ tags: climate, climate change, global cooling, global warming, Ice Age

On the Global Warming carousel, today we have this bit:

Speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on Monday, (Weather Channel founder John) Coleman sharply chastised those who further global warming alarmism. Coleman believes that the station he founded has been captured by alarmists, such as the Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen, who has advocated revoking the license of meteorologists that believe global warming can be explained by cyclical weather patterns and not human activity.

Actually, I’m kind of okay with this either way, for two reasons:

1. It’s a known fact that we’re on the tail end of a mini ice age. Warming would be the trend right now even if humanity had jumped ship a hundred years ago. (That’s not to say I don’t think we’re affecting the climate negatively, I’m just saying that’s the trend according to information I’ve come across).
2. I think it’s in our best interests, regardless of Global Warming, to stop burning fossil fuels. I know the almighty dollar feeds off the price of oil, but damn, smog sucks, whether it’s warming the climate or not. 

And on this topic the one big problem I have is kind of the same problem I have with religion and politics.  People have no tolerance for other people whose opinion, viewpoint or belief differs from their own. Case in point, as pointed out in the article linked to above, Heidi Cullen is advocating revoking the licenses of meteorologists who believe global warming can be explained by cyclical weather patters and not human activity. So…not only do you believe you are right, but you think those who believe otherwise should be punished.

I’ll tell you this, global warming is a fact, and whether we’re causing it or not I could care less. It’s happening, weather patterns are disrupted and it’s just going to keep getting worse (at least until it gets better). I think it’s in our best interests to curb our burning of fossil fuels because it’s pollution, and pollution is bad for us and for the planet, climate change or no. If we stop burning fossil fuels we would be healthier, and the planet would be, too. Of course it would–even if you don’t believe burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, surely you can see that rainbow streak of oil in the water when you go to the river or lake (where you can fish, but you’d better not eat the fish). Or oil spills–Exxon Valdez… gasoline @ four bucks a gallon and Exxon turning the highest profit margin of any corporation ever. There are plenty of reasons to hate pollution, and global warming is just the latest, controversial topic du jour. So you’ve got to pick your fights, right, I know that, but amidst all this madness and indisputable proofs of the negative effects of pollution, Heidi wants to revoke licenses because people don’t believe the theory she insists on is evident. She wants people punished because they disagree with her opinion. She might as well be in Belfast during the ’80s, at war with the other religion because of their beliefs.  

Pollution is an old problem that’s gotten way, way out of hand. We’ve known it for decades. Whether you believe we’ve impacted global warming or not doesn’t matter to me, because I believe everyone can see the negative effects of pollution. Curb the pollution and you’ve done your duty, and both sides and pat one another on the back and gear up for the coming Ice Age :-)

written by Matt Mitchell \\ tags: climate, climate change, global warming, Ice Age, meteorologist, meteorologists, pollution