The resolution of revolutions is selection by conflict within the scientific community of the fittest way to practice future science. The net result of a sequence of such revolutionary selections, separated by periods of normal research, is the wonderfully adapted set of instruments we call modern scientific knowledge.
Bear with me. It’s hard writing positive news in a compelling and entertaining fashion. Here goes my best effort. It appears that we now have an effective scientific explanation for why the planetary climate warmed from 1850 to 2000 and then seemed to abruptly stop doing so. We have an improved theory of global warming that uses data; not fear. One that produces results that map reality without attempting to justify regulatory brigandage. The Waterloo News details what has been discovered.
"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.”
"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,” Professor Lu said.
Somewhere Thomas Kuhn must feel like smoking a cigar and sipping a fine, well-aged cognac as he reposes resplendently in a chaise lounge up in heaven. As Benjamin Santer’s Krakatoa-like rants (“You’d Better Be Scared as H_ _ _!!”) look increasingly reminiscent of Cartman from South Park demanding that you respect his authorite’; Kuhn’s hypothesis from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions looks far more convincing than George Monbiot’s rather interesting conjecture that the snow outside is what Global Warming looks like.
A brief history of recent climate science puts this outstanding effort in its proper context. From about 1850 to nearly 2000 our planet appeared to be growing significantly warmer over time. There were fluctuations, but a trend was identified (and some would say artificially amplified) suggesting that our climate was warming at a dangerous rate. We have recently enjoyed a fortuitous leveling in what was previously a significantly alarming increase in the Earth’s Median Daily Temperature. From about 1998 to the present, the Earth’s temperatures have either stabilized or moderately decreased. The current controversial theories regarding human impact on the terrestrial climate failed to explain this departure from forecast. But rather than holding a polka dance to celebrate our likely salvation from climate-induced immolation, proponents of AGW engaged in an odious practice of “Hiding the Decline.” But why hide the decline when you can scientifically account for it instead?
So we unify our knowledge base regarding which chemicals most dangerously pollute the atmosphere and harm the commonweal most voraciously. We explain the decline instead of hiding it. We discredit the failures and excoriate them for their abuses. But better yet, we learn that our legitimate efforts to make sound scientifically-based environmental policy can actually work. The Montreal Protocol was put in place in the late 1980’s to prevent CFC’s from catalyzing Stratospheric Ozone depletion cycles from NOx, ClOx, and other related gaseous components. We learn now that this treaty has had the positive externality of also preventing significant AGW.
“My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline.”
This is like a cold drink of water in the desert for beleaguered members of the energy industry. We now learn that CO2 is not driving the train on AGW. This would imply that Cap and Trade would not even address the problem it was designed to repair. Yes indeed, Waxman just got waxed.
This would further benefit mankind if the money spent attempting to link coal to AGW was spent instead on approving combustion filtration and efficiency so that it doesn’t cause legitimately proven pollution problems such as PM 2.5. There is work still to be done, and our air can be made cleaner.
When the science is actual science instead of climate scientology, I feel strongly encouraged that progress can be made in a way compatible with both our economic well being and personal freedoms. The news could not be better. So much so that people will wonder if it is really me that wrote this blog entry.