Wednesday, July 06, 2011 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Did Chinese coal cause the cooling since 1998?

BBC and others celebrate a great new paper in PNAS that claims to finally explain why there hasn't been any warming in the last decade or so.

How did the research start?

China is considered by Al Gore to be the world's leader in the improvements of the environment. He screamed WOW when he looked at the new "astonishing" 5-year plan of their communist party. They made him piss in his pants and he dreams about the United States that are controlled by these comrades, too.

A Robert Kauffman of Boston University was listening to Fox News and an older Gentleman - a viewer - asked why there hasn't been any warming in the last decade. For Kauffman, that was a shocking insight. You know, Kauffman is a part of the climate research community that has swallowed 50+ billions of dollars in a decade but he needed an old viewer of Fox News to learn about the absence of warming in recent ten years!

While this very episode shows that Mr Kauffman just fell from another galaxy and doesn't have the slightest clue about the actual climate on this blue, not green planet (much like a vast majority of his IPCC-linked "climate scientists"), he decided to instantly act as a terrestrial alien who can explain anything and everything.

So they wrote a paper that explains everything. And because crackpot papers that explain everything and indirectly confirm the consensus of ideologues and brainwashed simpletons are politically correct (especially if the authors are surfer dudes), this stuff was instantly published by Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, a journal that does their best to reject all papers from genuine scientists such as Richard Lindzen.

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008 (PNAS)

Full text (PDF), Appendix and Suppl. Inf. (PDF)
Just to be sure, the co-author Michael L. Mann is someone else than Michael E. "Hockey Stick" Mann. The full text files are hosted by Mr Stock, a Harvard economist (!!!) who is another co-author. Even though he normally studies the Stock market (a pun), he wasn't afraid to write a climatological paper for PNAS. :-) The final co-author is Heikki Kauppi who is a Finnish economist (!!!). Fine. What's the answer? Why was there a slight cooling in the recent decade?

It's due to the Chinese who burned lots of coal! Now, China is already led by communists so it is OK with the climatologists and the bad CO2 from coal that causes warming may be forgotten and forgiven. Instead, the Chinese comrades with their exploding industrial sector may be credited with cooling - which, recall, is good according to tne global warming bigots.

Well, aerosols and sulphate particles surely do influence the climate to one extent but the magnitude, maybe even the sign, and the geographic reach is unknown. In particular, much of the cooling caused by aerosols is local in character because much of the pollution doesn't get too far, after all. The places that saw the most striking cooling in the recent decade - such as the continental United States - haven't seen any increase of the aerosols in that period. Quite on the contrary.

However, these particles and compounds may also have global consequences. The error margin of this impact is comparable to 100 percent.

Even if this explanation were qualitatively OK, it still shows how incredibly shaky the contemporary would-be "mainstream" opinions about the climate drivers are. Suddenly, an old Gentleman who watches Fox News is the primary cause of a paper that explains away a whole decade of warming by a previously neglected mechanism.

Because the world economy is wasting something like half a trillion dollars for the AGW alarm every year, then - if you believe the official explanations - the Fox News viewer has brought us some good news worth 5 trillion dollars. Isn't it great? If some people are genuinely afraid of warming, why don't they celebrate him? This Fox News viewer isn't far from being our savior. He helped a prophet from Boston University to learn about a super secret knowledge - that there hasn't been any warming for 10 years - and this super secret knowledge could ultimately be spread by the prophet as a gospel. What a sequence of lucky accidents.

With such a peer-reviewed paper, it may even become politically correct to admit that there hasn't been any global warming for a decade! ;-)

Well, you surely know why the Chicken Littles don't celebrate the absence of warming: the AGW bigots actually dream about the warming. They know that there is no threat coming out of it but they also know that a warming could make the position of their unsustainable religious system stronger for a few more years. Paradoxically, it's the climate skeptics who don't want any huge warming in the future - and of course, the skeptics' preferences will almost certainly be respected by Mother Nature.

I am talking about these things jokingly because the idea that the warming predictions failed because of the Chinese coal is just a random guess, one among hundreds of possible explanations. A much more reasonable explanation is that no warming should have been expected in the first place. And there are dozens of other major possible causes of warming and cooling episodes, from various ocean cycles to the solar activity as well as random weather fluctuations, that may be responsible for the dynamics of temperatures in the last 10 years - or any other 10 years.

Why don't those people honestly admit that they simply have no clue what was happening since 1998 and what will be happening before 2020, 2030, or 2100? Even if they don't admit it, the constantly changing explanations are enough for everyone else to see that they don't have a clue and they're often deliberately lying.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (1) :

reader Unknown said...

Hey Lubos,

About CO2 and climate: Can we atleast say that the planet is warm in the first place because of CO2, and the CO2 concentration has increased in the last couple of centuries due to fossil-fuel burning, and forest clearing (taking place over several centuries). Therefore, there is a tendency for the atmosphere to become warmer??

A no-brainer conclusion, isnt it?