Tuesday, July 5, 2011

How to stop Global Warming

Global Warming Skeptics (and even some foot-washing snake-handling True Believers) have noted that there hasn't been any increase in earth's temperature for about 10 years. 
It's been incredibly frustrating for those who are trying to make money off of fluctuations in the weather. 
The planet just won't cooperate with the computer models. 


And now we know why....


Here's Gerard Wynn, writing for the Reuters news service:

Reuters) - Smoke belching from Asia's rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur's cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

Where to begin, where to begin....
First of all, we have the National Academy of Sciences acknowledging that Climate has stopped Changing, and that the Globe has stopped Warming. 
Next, we have a theory that pollution is helping to solve the problem. 
Let's complicate matters further by acknowledging that emerging economies take care of their own pollution problems once individual income hits the $6-$7,000 per year level. 

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.

Wait a minute....What? 

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.


Wait a minute....What?

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.


I thought that's what they said.  Just wanted to be sure. 
The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.

Sulphur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.

"Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role," the paper said.

Natural cooling effects included a declining solar cycle after 2002, meaning the sun's output fell.

So should we encourage 3rd world countries to continue pumping sulfur?  It seems cheaper than giving Al Gore tax money for perpetual motion machines, cheaper than giving tax breaks for painting machinery green, and cheaper than godawful carbon rationing schemes. 

The study said that the halt in warming had fueled doubts about anthropogenic climate change, where scientists say manmade greenhouse gas emissions are heating the Earth.

"It has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008," said the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.

It's also unclear why Jesus didn't return to earth on May 21st, despite Harold Camping doing bulletproof interpretations of ancient prophecy.  Harold Camping took another long look at his failed prophecies and kicked the can down the road to October 21st.  He's still in business, and he's still respected by his followers.  His revenue stream survived the May 21st disappointment.
 
Whether or not the Climate Change Cult can last remains to be seen.  I hope so, because as long as they don't get too much power, they increase my website traffic without doing too much harm to anyone else. 

2 comments:

Nick said...

Oh, so we're supposed to be churning out sulfur?

Didn't we just switch to Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel a few years ago?

This is obviously all Bush's fault.

Cedric Katesby said...

Why do you do this?
What is wrong with getting your science information from original sources?

Here's Gerard Wynn, writing for the Reuters news service...

Why should you care?
Who is Gerard Wynn to you?

All you are doing is cherry-picking the stuff some guy wrote and ignoring the stuff IN THE SAME ARTICLE that you don't like.
It's dishonest.

First of all, we have the National Academy of Sciences acknowledging that Climate has stopped Changing, and that the Globe has stopped Warming.

Oh we do?
Really?
Read the article a little better.
Try including the stuff that doesn't exactly fit in with your narrative.

What exactly is the position of the NAS on climate change?
(Hint: they have their own website. There's no need to get your information second-hand like you always do.)

A real skeptic would use primary sources of information.
You care what the NAS has to say about climate change?
Good.
Go to them directly.
Get your information straight from the horse's mouth.

Here's their link.

Use it.
Going to primary sources for your science information is the best way to go about finding out the truth. Lead by example and stop being lazy.