Carbon Pipelines Negative T

AT: Warming– No Warming

No warming—we’ve entered a 30 year period of cooling—proved by PDOs

** PACIFIC DECADAL OSCILLATION

Easterbrook 10—geology professor specializing in climate effects

(Don, geology professor emeritus at Western Washington University [http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/easterbrook_climate-cycle-evidence.pdf] EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING: RECURRING GLOBAL, DECADAL, CLIMATE CYCLES RECORDED BY GLACIAL FLUCTUATIONS, ICE CORES, OCEAN TEMPERATURES, HISTORIC MEASUREMENTS AND SOLAR VARIATIONS)

‘Global warming’ (the term used for warming from 1977 to 1998) is over. No warming above the level temperatures in 1998 has occurred and global cooling has deepened since 2005 (Fig. 24). Switching of the PDO back and forth from warm to cool modes has been documented by NASA’s satellite imagery (Figs. 25, 26). The satellite image from 1989 is typical of the warm mode (1945-1977) with most of the eastern Pacific adjacent to North America showing shades of yellow to red, indicating warm water. The satellite image from 1999 (Fig. 27) shows a strong contrast to the 1997 image, with deep cooling of the eastern Pacific and a shift from the PDO warm to the PDO cool mode. This effectively marked the end of ‘global warming’ (i.e., the 1977 to 1998 warm cycle). Figures 27–30 show that the switch of the PDO from its warm cycle to the present cool cycle has become firmly established. Each time this has occurred in the past century, global temperatures have remained cool for about 30 years (Fig. 31). Thus, the current sea surface temperatures not only explain why we have had global cooling for the past 10 years, but also assure that cool temperatures will continue for several more decades.

Cooling is coming now – it’s fast and outweighs the effects of warming

Carlin 11 – PhD in Economics from MIT

Alan Carlin, PhD in Economics, former Director @ EPA and fellow @ RAND, 3-2011, “ A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 8

On the contrary, the evidence is that during interglacial periods over the last 3 million years the risks are on the temperature downside, not the upside. As we approach the point where the Holocene has reached the historical age when a new ice age has repeatedly started in past glacial cycles, this appears likely to be the only CAGW effect that mankind should currently reasonably be concerned about. Earth is currently in an interglacial period quite similar to others before and after each of the glacial periods that Earth has experienced over the last 3 million years. During these interglacial periods there is currently no known case where global temperatures suddenly and dramatically warmed above interglacial temperatures, such as we are now experiencing, to very much warmer temperatures. There have, of course, been interglacial periods that have experienced slightly higher temperatures, but none that we know of that after 10,000 years experienced a sudden catastrophic further increase in global temperatures. The point here is that there does not appear to be instability towards much warmer temperatures during interglacial periods. There is rather instability towards much colder temperatures, particularly during the later stages of interglacial periods. In fact, Earth has repeatedly entered new ice ages about every 100,000 years during recent cycles, and interglacial periods have lasted about 10,000 years. We are currently very close to the 10,000 year mark for the current interglacial period. So if history is any guide, the main worry should be that of entering a new ice age, with its growing ice sheets, that would probably wipe out civilization in the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere—not global warming. The economic damages from a new ice age would indeed be large, and almost certainly catastrophic. Unfortunately, it is very likely to occur sooner or later.

No scientific support for global warming hypothesis

Armstong 11 – Professor @ U Wharton School

J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing specializing in forecasting technology, 3-31-2011, “Climate Change Policy Issues,” CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis

Global warming alarmists have used improper procedures and, most importantly, have violated the general scientific principles of objectivity and full disclosure. They also fail to correct errors or to cite relevant literature that reaches conclusion that are unfavorable. They also have been deleting information from Wikipedia that is unfavorable to the alarmists' viewpoint (e.g., my entry has been frequently revised by them). These departures from the scientific method are apparently intentional. Some alarmists claim that there is no need for them to follow scientific principles. For example, the late Stanford University biology professor Stephen Schneider said, "each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest." He also said "we have to offer up scary scenarios" (October 1989, Discover Magazine interview). Interestingly, Schneider had been a leader in the 1970s movement to get the government to take action to prevent global cooling. ClimateGate also documented many violations of objectivity and full disclosure committed by some of the climate experts that were in one way or another associated with the IPCC. The alarmists' lack of interest in scientific forecasting procedures and the evidence from opinion polls (Pew Research Center 2008) have led us to conclude that global warming is a political movement in the U.S. and elsewhere (Klaus 2009). It is a product of advocacy, rather than of the scientific testing of multiple hypotheses.