SpiroFlo looks at recent data that notes, despite a 0.75-degree temperature increase since 1880, global temperatures have plateaued or been in decline for most of the last 70+ years.
A little while back, I mentioned how even green circles are moving away from the term ‘global warming.’ This didn’t surprise me, as the term is as flimsy and definable as ‘green’ – meaning you can seemingly make it mean whatever you want. Numbers, however, they’re a little trickier to finagle:
According to August 2012 data jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Professor Phil Jones’s Climatic Research Unit, global warming stopped in 1997.
(Well, guess that partly explains why my wrestler tan never quite came in.)
While there’s a detailed article from the U.K.’s Daily Mail* on the matter, here’s what the data says and doesn’t say:
- From the start of 1997 to mid-2012, there was no discernible increase in aggregate global temperatures (a period of 15 years thus far).
- However, global temperatures did rise from 1980 to 1996 (a period of 16 years).
- Prior to 1980, global temperatures were stable or declining for 40 years.
- Climate scientists are now in a debate about the value of the data. Professor Jones notes that he and his colleagues did not understand “the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun.”
- That said, he also stated that the 15-year pause period is too short to draw conclusions and he remains convinced that decade-long data will show an overall rise in global temperatures from 2010-2020 (there was already a fair amount of press on 2010 being a warmer year, even if the overall trend is negligible).
- Professor Judith Curry disagrees, stating that, based on this data, using current computer models to predict future warming is “deeply flawed.”
- “Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.”
- The data does not deny the impact of CO2 emissions on the environment or that a period of global warming might resume. However, it does suggest that the situation is not as dire as many have claimed.
- Regardless, costly initiatives are still in place to reduce CO2 emissions.
- Part of the reason gas bills are still increasing is due to “ ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.”
While the article notes that press on the study was quiet, it doesn’t note why. Professor Jones and colleagues are the ones tracking the data, updating computer models to predict the warming, and then angling for the implementation of law and policies to prevent the mass warming reality. So, for the data (and therefore the basis of the computer programs) to be different than expected, suddenly the impact of this green movement is on the line.
For as aggressive as the green movement has been to establish credibility, that same aggressiveness works against them when the numbers (not the opinions) aren’t so clear-cut.
Other points to consider:
- Professor Jones dismissed the value of the continuing 15-year plateau as being too small, yet still believes that a warming prediction of the ten-year period of 2010-2020 will be significant. No time like the present or unproven future, I guess.
- The 16-year period of warming from 1980 to 1996 is the basis for much of the dire predictions, yet Jones does not dismiss it as being too small or insignificant in the big picture. Jones also had no comment (quoted at least) on the value of stable/declining temperatures from 1940-1980.
- If you think about the time periods mentioned above and the blame placed on people for having too many CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use, some of the increases and decreases should be swapped. Additionally, if there is global warming from 2010-2020, a period where we’re seeking to limit CO2 use more than the periods before, doesn’t that data again work against Professor Jones’ theories on the source of global warming? Then again, doom saying has to be current if nothing else.
- While climate scientists are realizing there are more factors to consider, this acknowledged variability on analyzing data still hasn’t shifted the majority of climate scientists to acceptance of other theories, namely those who reject the notion of people having major impact on the environment (with the belief that cooling and warming go in cycles).
CO2 emissions do have some impact. I think that’s the reality of being alive: You affect and effect things, environment included, but there’s more impacting the earth than just us. While we can play a part, thus far, regardless of what strong-arm talking heads say, the repercussions of that part are still debatable.
EDIT: Rebuttals to the article have popped up. See here.
* * *
*Thanks to super fan Julia for sending the article along.
Colin McKay Miller is the VP of Marketing for the SpiroFlo Holdings group of companies:
-SpiroFlo for residential hot water savings (delivered 35% faster with up to a 5% volume savings on every hot water outlet in the home) and industrial water purification (biofilm removal).
-Vortex Tools for extending the life of oil and gas wells (recovering up to 10 times more NGLs, reducing flowback startup times, replacing VRUs, eliminating paraffin and freezing in winter, etc.).
-Ecotech for cost-effective non-thermal drying (for biosolids, sugar beets, etc.) and safe movement of materials (including potash and soda ash).