Posted on 03/22/2008 8:38:44 AM PDT by milwguy
CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
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.”
As the earth cools, the UN and Al Gore will use this new Sat data to argue that we must eliminate CO2 emissions because that is actually causing Global Cooling. They even have new data that ‘proves’ it!
Marohasy: “That’s right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer’s interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.”
If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
“The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite “
This will be their “way out of the lie”. The satellite
changed their minds.
but wait...the AFP article debunked the trend
Winter Has Been Warmer Than Average
The global temperature for meteorological winter — December, January and February — averaged 54.38 degrees Fahrenheit, 0.58 degrees warmer than normal for the last century, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1985438/posts
There ya’ go...
same facts different conclusion...
Evidence of intelligent design by a Creator?
Darn that C-Student Algore, Plus to Minus, Minus to Plus!
It could very well be that we have an overall long-term warming trend that is smaller in rate than the short-term solar-induced fluctuations. To say that's not important is like having your auto mechanic tell you that "it's okay if your car pulls to the left--it's not out of alignment because you are able to steer to the right more than it's pulling."
Many deniers are as dishonest as the Gorites, it seems, which really irritates me.
Seems to be rather direct evidence that God is smarter than High Priest Algore.
And God's world is capable of taking care of itself to a highly sophisticated degree.
I find it easy to deny most things Gore says.
Their ‘models’ do not show this effect, thus their ‘models’ are wrong. If their models said 5-10 years ago that this would happen, then I would say you may have a point. If their moedls are wrong, they are wrong, and thus ANY prediction on the future is suspect at best.
Thus the transition from the title "global warming" to "climate change", after all as unpredictable as the weather is, what better way to maintain a constant source of wealth via transference?
The word “denier,” besides being “one who denies,” is also the traditional name of a coroner’s assistant. In other words, second fiddle at a dissection. Apt title for Al Gore, I should think.
The magnitude of the GHG forcing might be off, the effect of insolation might need to be re-examined, the other factors in the model (including interactions) might need to be improved....but none of these things mean that there's no CO2 forcing, or that there's no tipping point! (The tipping point might be well into our future, past our lifetimes, for example...or the GHG forcing might be so minimal as to be not relevant in the grand scheme.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.