You wouldn’t think so if you looked at the way mainstream media cherry-picked NOAA’s recent “Arctic Report Card,” released on 10-17.
From CBS News we get the headline “Rapid Changes In Arctic, Experts Warn,” with the lead stating “The Arctic is under increasing stress from warming temperatures as shrubs colonize the tundra.”
From the BBC we get “Warm wind hits Arctic climate,” with the lead stating “The Arctic is being hit by melting ice, hotter air and dying wildlife.”
Yet if you actually read the report from NOAA, you get a much less alarming story:
“The first update of a report tracking the state of the Arctic indicates that some changes in that region are larger and occurring faster than those previously predicted by climate models, while other indicators show some stabilizing.”
“Not all indicators show extreme events, and some signals are mixed. For instance, North Pole ocean temperatures are returning to 1990s values, but currents are relatively warm around the edges of the Arctic Ocean.”
“Permafrost temperatures are stabilizing in both North America and Eurasia, but permafrost melt remains a serious problem. Shrubs are moving northward into tundra areas, but causes for treeline movements are difficult to assess because forest management practices are as influential as climate change.”
If you talk with atmospheric scientists, like we do, you will have to wonder why mainstream journalists don’t bother to mention the “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (ref. Wikipedia) a 60-70 year cycle, well documented, that causes Arctic warming lasting for decades, followed by cooling. Here are the dates applying to this cycle:
1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a “warm” phase.
1946: PDO changed to a “cool” phase.
1977: PDO changed to a “warm” phase.
1998: PDO index showed several years of “cool” values, but has not remained in that pattern.
Based on 20th century records, therefore, the shift to warming occurred in 1905 and again in 1977, a 72 year cycle. On that basis, the shift back to cooling would occur 72 years after the last cooling shift which was in 1946. So of course the 1998 index suggesting cooling had not yet occurred is misleading. The documented length of the PDO cycle indicates sustained cooling may not begin until 2018.
Unfortunately, by then in the name of curtailing global CO2 emissions, we may have nationalized our energy industry and gone to war with China. Under such a scenario, which is frighteningly possible if we are not permitted to continue the “debate,” by 2018 we will live in a world where the global north (developed nations) strangled the economies of the developing world in the name of anti-CO2 alarmism, and brought global CO2 emissions down to preindustrial levels. And in that world we will be told the hundreds of millions killed through the resulting wars and increased poverty, and the implementation of socialist tyranny from Brussels to Barstow was worth it - because the Arctic cooled again.
In reality the Arctic was cooling right on schedule, and we could have had peace and prosperity instead of socialism, tyranny, thought police, international tension, economic misery, neo-colonialism in the name of fighting CO2, and WWIII.
Think about it. Global warming alarm is a very, very dangerous trend, because it stifles debate, foments panic, and calls for drastic measures. Rational debate must be ongoing both as to the extent of this warming, the cause of this warming, and what the appropriate response should be, both politically and economically.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
You neglect to mention the huge benefit of a melting Artic, and a reason why we should embrace global warming as potentially good in many ways. We may soon have the NorthWest passage all those 17th and 18 century European explorers were seeking. Imagine the economic and energy savings we can have if ships from Europe can go directly thru the NW passage and save thousands of miles not having to go through the Panama Canal, and visa verse from Asia to Europe. Why do we focus only on the potential negatives? Not that I care very much, but I’m sure polar bears will adapt just fine, as will we.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Really? Come on, do you really think we’re all that slow? You’re using hysterical arguments, which is exactly what you accuse global warming to be. And by the way, we don’t all get our news from the popular media, and many of us are aware of all of the variables involved in what could be ‘Global Warming’. Real scientists are aware and are factoring these variables in.
“Nationalized our energy industry and gone to war with China”, WWIII, Really? “socialism, tyranny, thought police, international tension, economic misery, neo-colonialism”, Really???
Now THAT’S what I would call alarmist! Please don’t stoop as low as the popular media, or ever worse, the likes of the Inquirer…you really do have a responsibility to the public at large. And it’s obvious that you are an intelligent person. Be ethical, not hysterical.
Thanks
October 19th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Now see here Paul - you’ve probably observed just as many infantile proclamations on television and radio as I have, and if it doesn’t frighten you, you aren’t paying attention. The four year old child standing by the seashore, plaintively declaring that “our parents didn’t make the choices they had to make, and now we have rising seas, etc.,” or the radio spot telling us “global warming is a choice, and we all have to do our part,” or the new laws forcing builders to include “global warming impact” in their EIRs, or Al Gore saying “this is a crisis,” and “this is a moral issue,” and Robert Kennedy saying “global warming skeptics are traitors and should be treated as such.” And on and on and on. Often paid for with our tax dollars.
What do YOU think is going to happen, if this hysteria isn’t curbed? Do you actually think we can lower CO2 emissions enough to impact global climate? Are you kidding? Over 90% of our energy in the world comes from burning things. And what do YOU think is going to happen when the global economy slows down, and on top of all the stress that will create, we are leaning on China to stop burning coal? Clean coal (no particulates etc.) is feasible - instead you want coal without CO2?
The hidden agendas behind global warming alarmism are not pretty - at their most innocent, it is to raise the price of energy and transfer wealth into the hands of otherwise insolvent public entities.
Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic in my conclusion to this post, and perhaps I should minimize that as much as possible. But I am tired of hearing people say “the debate is over.” The debate is not over, and anyone who thinks it should be over is crossing a line we should not cross in this democracy.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Mr. Norrigan is correct in that Mr. Ring was being an alarmist, much as the global warming zealots are. However, he makes real scientific points that Mr. Norrigan ignores, as do all the GW zealots. We infidels present arguements refuting the CO2 HYPOTHESIS and the true believers ignore them. They simply throw ad hominem arguements back, never addressing our arguements directly.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 am
Global Warming: Who cares what you call it. Scientific facts and theories can be argued forever because there will always be two sides to every issue. It only matters if you have eyes and can comprehand what you are seeing. 50 years ago I could easily see my hometown skyline, today I ONLY SEE SMOG. 40 YEARS ago I flew a lot while in the military and could easily see the ground from 25 to 35k feet, today when flying I see mostly haze(smog). With 400+ million vehicles on the road and a new coal fired electrical plant every week(world-wide) you can only dilute the atmosphere so much. Anybody can argue against enviromentalists or the fossil fuel proponents , but if you use your senses, just observe what you see and breathe. My life span is getting short, but I have children who are having children, Think about the legecy we are leaving Them. So instead of arguing what the other side said , what matters is to reduce our carbon foot-print or conserve our resources , so our children can have a Breathable Future
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 am
Dave: Thank you for your comment. I’d be interested in where you are referring to. I grew up in the Silicon Valley in the 1960’s, back when it was still known as the Santa Clara Valley. When I was growing up, say in 1965, there were only about 500,000 people living in that valley, and the air was so filthy you often couldn’t see the mountains five miles away. Now there are 2.0 million people living there, but the air is much cleaner, thanks to unleaded gas and catalytic converters. And this is a very good thing. The air is not dirtier now than it was - per capita, in the USA at least, the air is much cleaner than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
If you want to use “carbon” as the currency to accelerate a transition away from fossil fuel, fine, but please don’t say CO2 is pollution, because it isn’t. Plants can’t grow without CO2, and for CO2 to be toxic for humans it would have to do a lot more than double - CO2 will not hurt human health at any conceivable level of fossil fuel driven increases in our atmosphere.
The need for the US to eliminate dependence on foreign energy - or at least greatly diversify that dependence - is compelling. We support that absolutely. And the need to eliminate remaining sources of genuine pollution - NO2, CO, SO2, O3, particulates, and so on - is compelling and we support that absolutely as well.
But the notion that rising CO2 concentrations due to industry are leading to runaway global warming is not beyond debate at all. And it would be helpful if more people would reopen their minds to the issues involved, and make the distinction between (1) energy independence, (2) genuine unhealthy air pollution, and (3) CO2 emissions. These are distinct issues with distinct reasons to be supported or debated.