Turn Up The Heat

Global Warming is not what it used to be. It appears that despite a continuing rise in CO2 global temperatures for the last 10 years have been falling. If you count just since 2002 temperatures have been stagnant. The ABC mentioned is the Australian Broadcasting Company.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Jeeze. That doesn't fit the models. Could our vaunted model makers and the Super Genius James Hansen have made a huge mistake? How is that possible?

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

The sun drives the climate? What an unusual idea. What will those wacky scientists come up with next?

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Let me see if I get this. The earth heats. The heat causes more clouds. By reflecting sunlight clouds limit the temperature rise. So water vapor is a negative feedback element, rather than a positive one as the warmologists have been saying. Who would have thunk this? This is so novel. Totally unexpected. Well not exactly. I have been saying something along these lines for over a year.

Global Warming Not So Hot
Clouds
More Clouds
Model Prediction
Climate Alchemy - Turning Hot Air Into Gold
Clouds In Chambers
Feedbacks Misdiagnosed
The Big Heat Pipe In The Sky

It is not like I haven't been trying to warn those fools.

Climate scientists Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roger A. Pielke Jr. had this to say in 2006.

There is no greater danger to support for action on important issues of human impacts on the environment than an overselling of what climate science can provide. If the climate behaves in ways that are unexpected or surprising it will be more than just credibility that is lost. Advocates for action should think carefully when gambling with the unknown predictive abilities of climate models. The human influence on the climate system is real, but the climate may not always cooperate.”

Of course they were ridiculed. The warmists had the best scientists the best computers and the best models. What could possibly go wrong? How about GIGO?

Man is Al Gore going to be pissed. Carbon indulgences are going to be a lot harder to sell now. Fortunately the Euros and California have already passed laws against carbon emissions. Making it harder for coal fired plants to get built. Raising their costs for electricity. Those Euros and the wacky Californians are really smart. Too smart by half.

A good page to read to learn even more is Icecap US.

Cross Posted at Classical Values