This much we seem to know about the climate: it has stopped getting warmer in the last 15 years. That’s not supposed to happen when carbon gases are increasing. Increase carbon gases “trap” heat from the sun, the more you have it, the warmer it gets, so says a “majority” of scientists.
So it has to be true. But it doesn’t have to be. If the case is that the climate is getting warmer and we find that it isn’t, then perhaps this business about trapped gases ought to be re-visited.
But no. The thing about global/warming/climate/change is that there is a lot at stake. Not so much in the scientific world (which there is) but the political. What is more important about scientists saying there is global warming is that liberals are saying it. If it isn’t happening after all, no more regulations, no more banning certain products or dictating what kind of light bulbs we use; no more politicians promising to “save the planet”; all that is now out the window.
So every week or so a “new finding” comes out that explains why it is getting warmer even though it isn’t getting warmer. I write here about one such theory in that “scientists” claim that the heat is being absorbed by the oceans, as in, all of a sudden the heat is being absorbed by the oceans.
The new theory is the weather phenomenon of El Nina which causes the Pacific ocean to be cold and shrill, El Nino, the male counterpart, causes the ocean to be warm and friendly; these variations could cancel out dirty stinking human carbon warming.
David Biello writes this in Scientific America:
From the 1940s through the 1970s there was no major warming trend in the average surface temperature of Earth. At the same time, the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is responsible for the weather patterns known as El Niño and La Niña that can swing global average temperatures by as much as 0.3 degree Celsius, was anomalously cold. For the past decade or so the tropical Pacific has again gone cold—more Niña than Niño—and a new study suggests that the phenomenon may explain the recent “pause” in global warming of average temperatures.
Why is it that we have more Nina than Nino? If the oceans are absorbing the heat (a finding from separate scientists in England) then shouldn’t we have more Nino?
They are separate findings that seem at odds of each other but any one of them could be valid, it can’t be both. But what the article does not bother to explain is the presence of El Nina and why it is “anomalously” cold in the first place. If surface temperatures are rising, why isn’t it rising in the Pacific Ocean so that it could mitigate the effects of El Nina or even cause its demise? Instead El Nina is more intensive. How can that be?
“The tropical Pacific is the engine that drives the global atmosphere and climate,” Xie says. “There were epochs of accelerated and stalled warming in the past,” including that pause in a global warming trend between the 1940s and 1970s, which has often been attributed to sunlight-blocking air pollution from Europe, the Soviet Union and the U.S.
Wait a minute, wait a minute, what was that? There was a “pause” in “warming” the thirty years between the 40‘s and 70‘s? And this is “often” “attributed” to air pollution? Do we know this or don’t we? What’s “often attributed” mean? Earlier the article stated (and I quote it above) that El Nina caused that pause. Are there any Scientific American Editors at the Scientific American?
Let me condense all this in a conversation:
It got warmer in the twentieth century.
We think it’s due to added carbon in the atmosphere because of humans with their trucks and burning fossil fuels, these things weren’t around before, we believe this is the culprit.
And this has caused warming for all of the twentieth century?
What do you mean “no”.
It wasn’t getting warmer from the 40‘s to the 70‘s.
Is it getting warmer in the 21st century?
So what makes you think it’s even getting warmer if it hasn’t for 50 years within the last 113?
Because carbon gas traps…
Yea, I know that, the question is, if that’s the case, how do you explain the 50 years when it wasn’t the case?
I don’t know.