Among other friends, I spend quite a bit of time with researchers at or associated with NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.) A couple of nights ago I was having dinner with three of them and I decided to conduct an informal poll as to whether they thought climate change is anthropogenic (man-made) and to my surprise all three said that they highly doubted it. The discussion that followed was technical in the extreme but none of the arguments was for human caused climate change.
Now, a dinner discussion is not a sign of scientific consensus, but doesn't it seem as though we are seeing almost daily reports of scientists, not politicians, debunking the entire concept of anthropogenic climate change and even more astonishingly, arguing that the Earth is entering a period of global cooling?
I believe this is a very, very good idea!
Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism
By: Kevin Mooney
Commentary Staff Writer
The Washington Examiner
08/04/09 3:51 PM EDT
Scientific evidence now points to global cooling
Opponents of the Waxman-Markey ?cap and trade? bill would do well to invoke recent scientific studies that show global surface temperatures have not increased since 1998, contrary to what climate models have predicted.
U.S. policymakers who cite ?consensus? on man-made global warming as justification for anti-emission regulations are relying upon outdated and misleading material from the United Nations that deliberately omits the influence of natural forces, according to climate skeptics. In fact, a growing body of evidence now points to the emergence of another cooling cycle that could persist for decades.
Dr. Don Easterbrook, a geologist and professor emeritus at Western Washington University, has presented data that shows a cooler and wetter climate is in order for the next 25 to 30 years. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO, he said in a recent study.
The shift away from a cooling cycle in 1945 triggered several decades of warming that ended in 1998, according to the study. However, the PDO has now reverted back over to a cool mode, Easterbrook has concluded. This data raises questions about the reliability of models used by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Easterbrook has said. This U.N. prediction of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 appear to be very much off track.
Meanwhile, some scientists are convinced earth could experience more than just cooling over the next few decades. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics with the National Autonomous University of Mexico sees evidence that points to the onset of a ?little ice age? in about 10 years that could last for much of the 21st Century. The IPPC models are not correct because they do not take into account natural factors like solar activity, he said in a lecture.
This view is also advanced in a paper published by the Astronomical Society of Australia. The authors anticipate that sun?s activity will diminish significantly over the next few decades.
Up until now, critics of the Waxman-Markey bill inside and outside of Congress have focused mostly on the severe economic costs of emission caps. During the August recess, it might be helpful to ask members why they continue to pursue regulatory schemes unattached to what new scientific data now shows.
Now, a dinner discussion is not a sign of scientific consensus, but doesn't it seem as though we are seeing almost daily reports of scientists, not politicians, debunking the entire concept of anthropogenic climate change and even more astonishingly, arguing that the Earth is entering a period of global cooling?
I believe this is a very, very good idea!
Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism
By: Kevin Mooney
Commentary Staff Writer
The Washington Examiner
08/04/09 3:51 PM EDT
Scientific evidence now points to global cooling
Opponents of the Waxman-Markey ?cap and trade? bill would do well to invoke recent scientific studies that show global surface temperatures have not increased since 1998, contrary to what climate models have predicted.
U.S. policymakers who cite ?consensus? on man-made global warming as justification for anti-emission regulations are relying upon outdated and misleading material from the United Nations that deliberately omits the influence of natural forces, according to climate skeptics. In fact, a growing body of evidence now points to the emergence of another cooling cycle that could persist for decades.
Dr. Don Easterbrook, a geologist and professor emeritus at Western Washington University, has presented data that shows a cooler and wetter climate is in order for the next 25 to 30 years. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO, he said in a recent study.
The shift away from a cooling cycle in 1945 triggered several decades of warming that ended in 1998, according to the study. However, the PDO has now reverted back over to a cool mode, Easterbrook has concluded. This data raises questions about the reliability of models used by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Easterbrook has said. This U.N. prediction of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 appear to be very much off track.
Meanwhile, some scientists are convinced earth could experience more than just cooling over the next few decades. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics with the National Autonomous University of Mexico sees evidence that points to the onset of a ?little ice age? in about 10 years that could last for much of the 21st Century. The IPPC models are not correct because they do not take into account natural factors like solar activity, he said in a lecture.
This view is also advanced in a paper published by the Astronomical Society of Australia. The authors anticipate that sun?s activity will diminish significantly over the next few decades.
Up until now, critics of the Waxman-Markey bill inside and outside of Congress have focused mostly on the severe economic costs of emission caps. During the August recess, it might be helpful to ask members why they continue to pursue regulatory schemes unattached to what new scientific data now shows.