Sunday, October 14, 2012

New MET Numbers: No Global Warming For Sixteen Years, Yet The War On CO2 Continues

As reported in the Daily Mail, according to the UK's MET office, based on data collected from 3,000 land and sea measuring points worldwide:

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

Every computer model relied on by the warmies to forecast global warming has as its fundamental premise that, as atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise, so will temperatures. We should have seen temperatures skyrocketing over the past 16 years, as the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere has gone from about 357 ppm to over 391 ppm. And yet:

Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’. . .

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

The EPA unilaterally declared carbon dioxide a pollutant on Dec. 7, 2009 based in large measure on those fundamentally flawed computer models. And the EPA has used that finding to justify a war on our energy resources, oil, gas, and in particular, coal. The ACCCE recently estimated that draconian EPA regulations will force "241 coal generators producing 36,000 megawatts (MW)" to be decommissioned "during the next three to five years." That accounts for 11% of our total electricity production. Gaius, at Blue Crab Boulevard, puts that into perspective:

Look, folks, I am in this field. I have been for more than 30 years. Losing 36,000 MWs of the most cost-efficient generation capacity in the US is a disaster. You have no idea how bad the increases are going to be. They will be disastrous to the individual energy consumers and apocalyptic to large users – those who create jobs.

I shudder to think of what this is going to do to grid reliability as well. A lot of those coal plants help support the grid during disruptions. They regularly provide both energy and MVARs (Mega Volt-Ampere Reactive) that keep the grid from collapsing when large loads are added or lost. (That’s about as simple as I can make it and still be understood.) Losing these stabilizers will make it very hard to hold the grid. I pity the load dispatchers.

Trust me, people, this is a very big, very bad thing that is happening as a direct result of Barack Obama’s war on coal.

It would seem that casting CO2 as a pollutant has far more to do with amassing money and power than it does with protecting us from any actual harm caused by CO2. The government gains power to regulate, and those with an in to government get to feed off of the money from our wallet. Because the truth is that none of these green energy boondoggles could survive in the open market. And together, they will cost us ever more dearly in the future - a time when some are projecting global cooling.

Update: Al Gore is the face of green parasites, getting rich off the public dime. But he is the tip of the green ice berg. The Washington Examiner has the story of another today, "leading Obama donor and subsidy recipient Elon Musk."

No comments: