Nov 29 2008

World Cools On Man-Made Global Warming

Published by at 12:22 pm under All General Discussions,Global Warming

It seems the world is not ready to destroy the world-wide economy on a fancy of error ridden ‘science’. As more and more evidence comes in refuting the Chicken Little calls from the pews of the Church of Al Gore/IPCC, it seems the idea of blowing trillions of dollars and destroying the minimal, quality of life for those on the lowest rungs of humanity is not as ‘hot’ as it once was. Reality has a way of destroying fads and flimflam schemes, and the man-made global warming hoax is no exception.

The world is cooling to the unsubstantiated and unproven claim that man-made CO2 is causing global warming, at least according to a new world-wide poll:

There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.

Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.

Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend “extra time” on the effort, an eight-point drop.

And only one in five respondents – or 20 per cent – said they’d spend extra money to reduce climate change. That’s down from 28 per cent a year ago.

Emphasis mine. The dirty little secret within the Church of Al Gore/IPCC is that the masses will pay a very heavy price to battle the mythical man-mad global warming, and the rich have sufficient money to insulate themselves with minimal effort. The whole cap-and-trade scheme is a way to make the masses pay for the excess of the ridiculously wealthy.

And why shouldn’t the world be turning their backs on these charlatans? Look at their record – none of the dire predictions have come true.  None! Let’s begin with the first round of ‘scientific’ claims made by the Church of Al Gore/IPCC in 1990 – now that we have nearly 2 decades of actual data to compare against these so called expert models.

Back in 1990 the Church of Al Gore/IPCC claimed the global climate would increase +0.3° C per decade (with a margin of error range of +0.2 to +0.5° C per decade). As I noted just recently, if the Church of Al Gore/IPCC was using solid scientific methods and theories that translates into what should be 0.6° C increase today over the 1988 temperatures – or +0.4 to +1.0°  C given the margin of error.

The reality? An ACTUAL increase of less than 0.2° C in  in two decades – basically no change. If these calculations where being used to fly astronauts to the space station and return them safely we would have corpses of astronauts orbiting the earth in droves. Here is an important graph of the reality verses the predictions:

 

Note the IPCC line heading off into Global Warming Hell, and the reality of no appreciable change in the measurements.  The IPCC claims and predictions have been no less inaccurate since 1990. They keep adjusting their predictions, moving the time of Armageddon farther and farther out as none of their claims pan out. All they do in each report is move the goal posts. While in the interim more and more real science has come out proving how pathetically wrong the followers of the Church of Al Gore/IPCC really are. 

Somehow all the man-made CO2 here on Earth started causing ‘global warming’ on Mars and Jupiter. No one has an explanation on how all our hot air travelled through space and infected planets millions of miles away and (in the case of Jupiter) many, many times the size of the Earth.

And this summer that part of NASA not attached to the Church of Al Gore/IPCC – which still does real science – noted that 70% of the Global Climate is independent of Green House Gases, out of which CO2 is only a small fraction of Green House Gas mix (water vapor is by far the dominate driver).

The problem with all the measured data is that, as CO2 levels continue to rise, the global temperature is not. Therefore there is no correlation between CO2 and global temps. Check out this graph which lays the CO2 level (green line) right on top of the Global Temperature measurements:

Anybody can see CO2 is climbing and the global temperature is flat (or dropping). In fact, this year marks an interesting year for the Church of Al Gore/IPCC – it is the year all their models are declared complete garbage, because 20 years after the IPCC declared a pending environmental disaster due to a warming globe, all the warming has suddenly disappeared:

Why? Because the real force behind our climate (the Sun) has shifted into a new phase – and when combined with a recurring and cyclic shift in ocean currents in the Pacific – we are actually facing decades of Global Cooling:

Addressing the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, WA, Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over. The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode (Fig. 1) is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and is not an oddity superimposed upon and masking the predicted severe warming by the IPCC. This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1°F per decade for the rest of the century.

What makes these truly scientific models believable is the fact the shift occurred when predicted and with the predicted indicators (low sun spot activity, PDO shifts, etc). The physical indicators showed up and the temperature has been dropping since. Unlike the IPCC models which still spew forth garbage. 

So is it really surprising that the world has turned a cold shoulder to the Church of Al Gore/IPCC and their cries of man-made, CO2 induced global warming? After all, they are proven failures. Who wants to throw hard earned money at proven failures? And I mean ‘proven’ in more than the fact the reality did not validate their models for 20 years. I mean in the discoveries of faulty data either from selecting the data they liked or by introducing biases into the data.

A well respected scientist has been doing some forensic investigations into where the Church of Al Gore/IPCC went astray. And it is pretty stunning stuff. For example, does anyone realize that much of the increase in global temperature was not a change in the temperature but a came as a result of a 30% reduction in the number of stations used to measure global temperatures?

There is a substantial body of peer-reviewed evidence that the surface temperature records are deficient for the purpose of measuring long-term climate change. Global surface temperature averages are produced from subsamples of the archive of the Global Historical Climatology Network maintained by the National Climatic Data Center at NOAA. Yet the GHCN stopped updating records from thousands of locations around the world in the early 1990s, either because the weather records in the host country ceased or GHCN simply dropped the record. The number of available temperature samples fell from about 12,000 per year to about 8,000 per year between 1990 and 1992, coinciding with the jump in the raw temperature average from about 10 oC to about 11 oC.

If you look at the accompanying graph (hopefully I can get it loaded later today) the jump is from 10°C to 11.5°C. Sort of odd how the global spike in temperature happens around the same time period as this change in the sample, helping the hyperventilating IPCC 1990 predictions look plausible. Reality has told a very different story since.

Also, when the Church of Al Gore/IPCC was forced to face the reality there was no Global Warming, they blamed the data (reality), instead of seeing this as a fault with their models (theory).

Early drafts of the IPCC Report ignored the peer-reviewed literature showing that the spatial pattern of surface temperature trends over land after 1980 is highly correlated with the spatial pattern of socioeconomic activity and industrialization, and that these non-climatic influences add a large upward bias to the post-1980 surface temperature data.

The IPCC asserts that the significant correlation between temperature change and industrialization is an artifact of natural atmospheric oscillations. However, the cited sections of the report (3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4) provide no evidence for such a claim. Moreover, the highlighted phrase claims that once this effect is accounted for, the correlations become statistically insignificant. “Statistical insignificance” is a specific scientific assertion, yet no empirical evidence for this statement is provided anywhere in the IPCC Report, nor do they cite any peer reviewed publication to support it. It is a fabrication.

We in the normal world call this denial. What they are saying is industrialization and development of the land has no effect on local temperature readings. And they call that ‘science’? How is it CO2 can have an effect but not asphalt, buildings, concrete jungles, etc?  

The fact is real-world measurements have been destroying the case for CO2 driven, man-made global warming for years and decades. Check out the history being made in Alaska:

Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years

A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the first time in the area’s recorded history, area glaciers have begun to expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.

“In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound”, said glaciologist Bruce Molnia. “In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years”.

Accordingly to Molnia, a difference of just 3 or 4 degrees is enough to shift the mass balance of glaciers from rapid shrinkage to rapid growth. From the 1600s to the 1900s, that’s just the amount of warming that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.

Molnia says one cold summer doesn’t mean the start of a new climatic trend. At least years like this, however, might mark the beginning of another Little Ice Age.

The evidence of how the Church of Al Gore/IPCC got it wrong is undeniable. What is hilarious is that these people want the world to tank their economies on this garbage science. Not likely. This is more likely the picture of the future:


6 responses so far

6 Responses to “World Cools On Man-Made Global Warming”

  1. combat18 says:

    However Nancy of the Laughing Eyes and the Obamessiah are moving forward regardless of science. This election was the triumph of ideology over rationality and we are going to pay the price, several times over.

  2. kathie says:

    John Kerry is soooooo excited to implement Obama’s new policies, making America a leader in global warming, spend, spend, spend, cap trade, shut down coal plants, oil drillers and who knows what else. The world is watching to see just how stupid we are, as they know for sure how stupid they have been. It will be interesting!

  3. we know, and you can type till you are blue in the face, it won’t stop the nuts in the short term. But keep banging away it will play a big role in the gains we will be making in 2010.

  4. Redteam says:

    from Drudge:
    “Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.

    The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.

    But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the “right to a healthy environment”.

    now these yayhoo’s want the US to be subject to a world court for environment. Guess who would be responsible for funding this charade and guess which country would be the main target of this court and guess which countries (China, Russia, etc) wouldn’t be the targets of this court.

    we better hope we get a senate that can filibuster or we’ll be a member, in poor standing, as soon as it’s enacted.

  5. sbd says:

    NEW YORK TIMES
    December 21, 1969, Sunday

    SECTION: Page 46, Column 4; (UPI)
    LENGTH: 57 words
    JOURNAL-CODE: NYT
    ABSTRACT:

    Physical scientist J O Fletcher warns man has only a few decades to solve problem of global warming caused by pollution, s, Amer Geophysical Union; notes warming could cause further melting of polar ice caps and affect earth’s
    climate; oceanographic chemist E D Goldberg warns man runs risk of allowing pollution to destroy life in oceans.

    Facts on File World News Digest
    July 2, 1977

    SECTION: U.S. AFFAIRS; Energy
    PAGE: Pg. 499 C1
    LENGTH: 418 words
    HEADLINE: Coal impact on climate questioned

    Columbia University geologist Wallace S. Broecker May 31 said increased reliance on coal for energy might over the next 50 years raise the average temperature on the earth by four degrees fahrenheit.

    Broecker’s prediction rested on the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: CO2 was transparent to incoming sunlight, “but somewhat opaque to outgoing earthlight” (sunlight reflected back out into space, where its heat
    would be dissipated). Carbon dioxide was produced by coal combustion; burning one ton of coal produced three tons of CO2.

    Broecker’s calculations assumed that coal would be used for most energy needs in 10 years and that the world’s population would double to eight billion by the turn of the century.

    Broecker, who was addressing the American Geophysical Union, observed that “from the point of view of personal comfort this [four degree rise] might not have much impact, just less opportunity to ski and more to swim, but it is not our personal comfort which is at stake but the whole web of life . . .the ecosystem.” The climatic change, Broecker said, would cause a slow melting of the polar icecaps, which would raise the sea level and so swamp low-lying coastal areas.

    “Although posing no threat,” Broecker said, “such a rise would be a very expensive nuisance.”

    The melting of the icecaps and consequent increase in water temperature could threaten sea life and affect rain patterns, Broecker noted.

    Broecker conceded there were other factors than the greenhouse effect to take into account in studying the effects of increased CO2. The CO2 rise might cause more cloud cover, which would tend to offset the heat rise.But Broecker warned against taking an overly optimistic view of the cloud-cover effect and said it would be “irresponsible to discount the possible effects of carbon dioxide . . .”

    The federal government was currently awaiting a report on a study of the impact of increased use of CO2 on the climate. Robert Fri, acting administrator of the Energy Research and Development Administration, said the study might
    cause a shift in direction of the Administration’s energy program, Science News reported April 30. The CO2 problem, Fri said, “could be to fossil fuel what proliferation was to the breeder.” Fri was referring to the Carter Administration’s decision to slow development of a fastbreeder nuclear reactor out of concern that the technology might lead to more nations building nuclear weapons. [See p. 267B3]

    Chemical Week
    August 3, 1977

    SECTION: WASHINGTON NEWSLETTER; Pg. 10
    LENGTH: 161 words
    HEADLINE: ‘Greenhouse effect’ gets quick reaction

    Congress and industry are reacting surprisingly quickly to the National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences warning that carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels could raise the mean temperature of the earth
    (CW Washington Newsletter, July 27 ). Representative George Brown’s (D., Calif.) House Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere is moving toward creation of a special agency. The agency would assess the threat of CO[2] and possibly make recommendations to change the Carter Administration’s energy policies. There is widespread disagreement over precisely what the “greenhouse” effect of a temperature increase would be, and this, says Brown, “is one of the first areas we want to look into.” On the industry side, several manufacturers of stack scrubbers have started research on how to remove CO[2] as well as sulfur dioxide. Substantial problems remain to be solved, and the cost is going to be high.

    NEW YORK TIMES
    September 18, 1979, Tuesday

    SECTION: Section 3; Page 2, Column 4
    LENGTH: 57 words
    JOURNAL-CODE: NYT
    ABSTRACT:

    Drs Bhaskar Choudhury and George Kukla, in recent issue of scientific journal Nature, report that increasing levels of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion will significantly reduce amount of solar energy absorbed by surface of snow or water. Finding contradicts view that such situation could result in global warming trend (S).

    The Globe and Mail (Canada)
    July 24, 1980 Thursday

    LENGTH: 486 words
    HEADLINE: World stands to lose a fifth of species, conference told
    BYLINE: Michael Kieran; GAM
    DATELINE: Toronto ON

    By MICHAEL KIERAN

    One fifth of the Earth’s surviving plant and animal species could become extinct by the end of this century, Global Conference delegates were told.

    Norman Myers, an environmental consultant from Nairobi, Kenya, gave this warning at a session on Energy and Ecology.

    “Of Earth’s five million species, we could well lose at least one million by the end of the century,” Dr. Myers said.

    “We are already losing one species per day, and by the end of the 1980s we could be losing one species per hour.”

    Although species are among the most valuable raw materials with which to meet an uncertain future, the Earth’s stock of species is being depleted more rapidly than many of its most precious mineral deposits.

    This extinction constitutes an irreversible loss of unique natural resources. When a species disappears, it is usually for good, which is usually bad. Of the small number of species already investigated for their economic value, many have made significant contributions to industry, agriculture and medicine.

    The main cause of species extinction is the loss of habitat resulting from economic exploitation of natural environments. Thus affluent sectors of the global community are responsible – often unknowingly – for the destruction of species and habitats in lands distant from their own.

    The session also addressed other environmental problems, including:

    The buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, caused by pollution and “slash-and-burn” agriculture, which also destroys tropical forests that burn up carbon dioxide.

    Major dislocations in global climate caused by carbon dioxide buildup and other factors.

    The causes and effects of acid rain.

    If the current buildup in carbon dioxide increases, Dr. Myers predicted, we can expect a significant warming of global temperatures before the end of the century. This could drastically shift the Canadian-U. S. grain belt, severely limiting our ability to feed ourselves and an increasingly hungry world.
    Eventually, it could lead to the melting of the polar ice caps, causing the Earth’s oceans to rise as much as 15 metres.

    Dr. Myers pointed out that tropical rain forests contain more than 70 per cent of all species, noting that “species and tropical forests are the great sleeper issues of the late twentieth century. It is difficult to imagine two issues of
    greater potential significance to humankind,” he said, “yet less recognized by the general public and its political leaders. “Because the impact on future prosperity will be greater from the exhaustion of tropical forests than from the
    exhaustion of oil supplies, it’s right and proper that we should shed a tear over the demise of the tropical rain forests; but while we do so, we should spare the Kleenex. “We invest in the future by raising children.” Dr. Myers added. ” Let’s not undercut that investment by destroying their ecological heritage.”

    Doesn’t this all sound familiar and yet none of the predictions of the 70’s have come to pass but we still hear the same predictions over and over with thosde making them hoping that at somepoint one of them might accidently become reality. Unbelievable!!

  6. [...] accelerated this year. We have seen the solar activity drop and the world’s ocean currents respond as predicted prior to a large cooling off. There are now many scientists who think we may see at least two [...]