Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
75
48
Friday, January 04, 2008 ... / / / / /

2007 warmest year on record? Coldest in this century



One month ago, we noticed that November 2007 was the coldest month since January 2000. Well, the RSS MSU satellite data show that December was even cooler. The December anomaly was -0.046 °C, compared to -0.014 °C in November. That means that December 2007 was also cooler than the average December from 1979. Moreover, we can finally complete the ranking of years!

Let me start with forecasts in the mainstream media.

In January 2007, we were informed that 2007 was either likely or certain to surpass 1998 and become the world's warmest year on record by most media, including: as well as virtually all other media you know. They justified this statement by referring to scientists who have combined greenhouse gases with the observed El Nino. Many sources, such as the New York Sun, even gave you the probability that 2007 would be the hottest year as 60 percent. They immediately added that this should "add momentum for the next phase of the Kyoto protocol".

In the middle of the year when it started to be clear that the prediction was bogus, Phil Jones (Reuters) changed his mind only infinitesimally. It would be the second hottest year, he said. These big-shot pseudoscientists never have the courage to say that they were wrong.

Reality: thermometers

However, the greenhouse gases are not too important and El Nino was replaced by La Nina. As a consequence, RSS MSU data for the lower troposphere (graph, more graphs) show that 2007 was the coldest year in this century so far. In alarmist jargon, it was the ninth hottest year on record: the most recent year was cooler than all other years in this century as well as 1998 (by a whopping 0.41 °C) and even 1995. According to different datasets (HadCRUT3, UAH MSU, NOAA), the year is going to be approximately the 8th (HadCRUT3) or 7th (NOAA) or 6th warmest year. UAH might report 2007 as the 4th warmest year and GISS will be a real exception because 2007 will be almost certainly its 2nd warmest year (as James Hansen said a few weeks ago, after 2005 but slightly above 1998) - but it is still very far from the hype about the hottest year. Your humble correspondent is not the only one who believes that the satellite measurements such as RSS, UAH are more accurate than GISS, HadCRUT3. It just happens that HadCRUT3 is closer to RSS than UAH to RSS, as far as the recent rankings go.

The RSS MSU linear trend extracted from the 1998-2007 interval is -0.48 °C per century of cooling! Numerically, it's almost the same trend that we assign to the 20th century but with the opposite sign! Other teams will generate qualitatively compatible results but substantially different numbers, raising doubts about the reliability of the temperature measurement even in the modern era.



Figure 1: Global cooling. Nine hottest years on record as shown by the RSS MSU calculations, from the hottest year 1998 to the coolest year 2007.

Let me emphasize that if someone thinks that the "ninth hottest year" is still hot, it is of course an irrational reaction. The global mean temperature is a continuous function of time and is auto-correlated. It follows that a short time after what has been identified as the hottest instrumentally measured years, we can't abruptly return to years as cool as 1850 or 1660. The laws of mathematics just make such a possibility extremely unlikely.

Ramifications

Do you expect the media listed above to apologize for the misinformation they have printed? Do you think they will tell their readers and audiences that they have made a mistake and reported scientifically unreliable and unlikely propaganda created by political activists and hacks such as Phil Jones? Do you think that they will promise us that they will be more careful in the future and avoid this kind of hype? If you do, you haven't understood what religious bigotry and special interests really mean. Most of these people are either lunatics who pay no attention whatsoever to reality, the actual data, or serious science, or corrupt people who greatly benefit from this big-scale misinformation and propaganda.



Figure 2: RSS MSU temperature anomaly for the lower troposphere (the layer near surface, description) in deg C, 1998-2007.

Here is the Google Docs spreadsheet with the complete 1998-2007 monthly data of RSS MSU and nearly complete data from four other teams (HadCRUT3, UAH MSU, GISS, NCDC NOAA) that will release their December data in a few days or weeks. You may also download the Excel file. The World Meteorological Organization publishes their data as an average of HadCRUT3 and NOAA: you can do the math to predict their results, too: for WMO, the year will be either 7th or 8th warmest year.

Phil Jones et al. now forecast 2008 to be even cooler than 2007 (sanely, due to La Nina that will strongly affect at least the 4 following months) but they present this prediction as perfectly compatible with "underlying global warming".
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
In the interests of those of us owning stock in Alcan ...we can't afford to see tin-foil hats fall off the market. Keep up the good work Walt!
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
23
Zurich
Global warming advocates are only global cooling deniers.

There is roughly equal evidence that we are on the brink of tipping into an ice age. Only the link between the United States, captalism, and prosperity for the west is missing. The question becomes how are the American right wing bastards causing the cooling? When we find the missing link, we have them both ways - where we want them.

Of course the link does not have to be real to give us that much needed sense of moral superiority, we can just lie. A global warming denier who has seen the light is an ideal leader.

Walter has the best numbers I've seen in years. Walter is our man.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Global warming advocates are only global cooling deniers.

There is roughly equal evidence that we are on the brink of tipping into an ice age. Only the link between the United States, captalism, and prosperity for the west is missing. The question becomes how are the American right wing bastards causing the cooling? When we find the missing link, we have them both ways - where we want them.

Of course the link does not have to be real to give us that much needed sense of moral superiority, we can just lie. A global warming denier who has seen the light is an ideal leader.

Walter has the best numbers I've seen in years. Walter is our man.

Ummm, bull sh|t. Where is the evidence for an oncoming ice age? The oncoming solar cycle 24 shows no evidence for that, and predicting grand solar minima and maxima is a random chaotic process. If we were to go through another Maunder minimum magnitude change, that would only respond to a change in climate forcing of between 0.17 W/m2 to 0.23 W/m2 from the current solar forcing, while the greenhouse effect is 1.66 W/m2 .

The numbers from Walters article are way off. Notice, that his article still has 1998 as the warmest year, even though it wasn't. 2005 was the warmest year. If I want to know stuff about string theory, I'll go to Lubos, but not for climate science.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Tonnington

Must be them durn centigrade type thermometers....

Ifn ya squint while standing on yer head in the middle of a snow storm you could believe we're bound for the glacial epoch or ....the mother of all snowstorms......
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
75
48
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
23
Zurich
Tonigton, bravo! The thing I like best about CC is it's the only place on Earth where people take me seriously. I have not been comprehesive in any capacity with respect to climate change. One day I hear one thing, the next day I hear another. Somebody claims to have a consensus, somebody else says there is no consensus. Somebody has one anecdote and some numbers, somebody has another aecdote and some numbers. One person says the answer in in climate modelling, another says it's in thermometer readings.

What is Joe citizen to think? Can we trust George Bush? George does not claim to have answers. Can we trust Al Gore? Gore has proven prone to exaggerate. Does Harper know? Harper seems to buy into global warming. What is the official Canadian government opinion? We signed Kyoto, but did not honour it or even try to.

Being a man of science Torington, and so knowing that global warming is primarily a function of the spectral heat reflectivity of the planet, would you happen to know how much data we have to indicate the reflective performance and trend of the planet? I really aught to look it up, but then I'd have facts, and there's nothing more difficult than the facts.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
You've really nailed it on the head Jim. What is the public to think?

It's a problem of perspective. Getting your news from one trusted source or another, with emphasis on your own particular bias. We see it all the time when someone calls CBC a Liberal news source, or Sun media as a Conservative news source. Editors pushing stories that sell to their base. That's not going to change, but that is the problem.

Climate science is really a hodge podge of multiple disciplines. As such, some will favour models, some will rely on instrument data, really depends on the nature of the subject one wants to investigate.

I think it's safe to say that Bush isn't to be trusted. His administration has a detailed history of shaping science with ideology. If you really want to open your eyes to the problem, the heat balance, or energy balance especially, look into the DSCOVR satellite that has been canceled for "funding priorities". That satellite would sit out at a spot where it would monitor the sunlit side of earth 24 hours a day, and give us direct measurements of the energy balance.

That satellite would solve the issue you've raised. But for some reason it was scrapped, and sits in a warehouse. Other government agencies and other governments have offered to buy it, launch it, and have been denied. Why? Politics would seem to be the answer.
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
23
Zurich
Tonington! The 'energy blance'. That's exactly the kinda goobledeegook I'm looking for! And... we scrapped the sattelite that coul, in a short time frame, like a few years, give us the dta on Earth's energy efficiency performance? Worse yet, mothballed it? Worse yet, refused to sell it?

And you suggest a political conspiracy to block science from answering the major environmental question of the age?

CC loves conspiracy theories, but, like, what if there is a satellite, was a cut, was an offer, and there reallyn is a Santa Claus?

If I have you right, I either have to test nthis conspiracy theory, dawn a tin hat, or claim that youi aught to. The energy balance, if it can be reliably measured and monitored, would end the debate in scientific circles as to current trend, would it not?

How would I, as a global cooling advocate, continue if the Earth is a heat sucker?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Tonington! The 'energy blance'. That's exactly the kinda goobledeegook I'm looking for! And... we scrapped the sattelite that coul, in a short time frame, like a few years, give us the dta on Earth's energy efficiency performance? Worse yet, mothballed it? Worse yet, refused to sell it?

And you suggest a political conspiracy to block science from answering the major environmental question of the age?

CC loves conspiracy theories, but, like, what if there is a satellite, was a cut, was an offer, and there reallyn is a Santa Claus?

If I have you right, I either have to test nthis conspiracy theory, dawn a tin hat, or claim that youi aught to. The energy balance, if it can be reliably measured and monitored, would end the debate in scientific circles as to current trend, would it not?

How would I, as a global cooling advocate, continue if the Earth is a heat sucker?

It may also have something to do with the fact that back in 1998 Gore suggested the idea for that type of satellite mission, and DSCOVR is known amongst it's other aliases as GORE-SAT.

If anthropogenic global warming really is bad science, this satellite would be able to show that. If it is a good theory, this satellite would show at least that those clinging to the edifice of the solar argument are wrong.

NOAA wants it, France wants it, even Ukraine wants it. But instead it sits in a box at Goddard Space Flight Center.

NASA cut funding to the Science portion of their budget to the tune of $400 million,and is instead focussing more money on the manned missions like the moon colony and the Space Station.

As any sane person, I would expect that if you were shown evidence that your working understanding was wrong, you would modify your opinions. Though I don't know that anyone I converse with online is sane, I do assume. Maybe I'm an ass for that.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
75
48
NOAA wants it, France wants it, even Ukraine wants it. But instead it sits in a box at Goddard Space Flight Center.
If France wanted it, it would be in orbit. They put satellites in orbit regularly.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Yet it remains in storage. America puts satellites in orbit regularly as well.

Just because France puts satellites in orbit doesn't mean the US would be obligated to acquiesce to France's request. That's some fuzzy logic there Walt.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
75
48
Yet it remains in storage. America puts satellites in orbit regularly as well.

Just because France puts satellites in orbit doesn't mean the US would be obligated to acquiesce to France's request. That's some fuzzy logic there Walt.
If France really wanted it they could build their own.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Is US the only country that has this kind of satellite?

Currently. Why spend all the money building one from scratch when one sits ready to launch? It's unwanted apparently by NASA, you'd think that they might want to recoup some of the $100 million in tax payers money for the development of the satellite.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
75
48
Currently. Why spend all the money building one from scratch when one sits ready to launch? It's unwanted apparently by NASA, you'd think that they might want to recoup some of the $100 million in tax payers money for the development of the satellite.
If France really wanted it they could buy it from NASA.
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
23
Zurich
Torington, "As any sane person, I would expect that if you were shown evidence that your working understanding was wrong, you would modify your opinions. Though I don't know that anyone I converse with online is sane, I do assume. Maybe I'm an ass for that."

I have been shown evidence! I've been shown that my understanding is both 'working' and not working at all. I modify my opinions daily. Yesterday wine was bad, today it's good.

Am I insane? So like, let's go a little further here, just past the brink of this black and white evidence, this world of proof, and right to my chair and these talking fingers. "...any sane person...if you were shown..."

Them's fightin' words Sir! If I can show myself. to my own satisfaction, then I have been shown. If I can, but to show myself, I am willfully ignorant and therefor perhaps guilty of willful insanity. Now, I'd hoped that you would just go away, but noooooo. Jimmy's gotta do homework. I hate homework! We don't need no stinking truth!

ok. I'll get the f..... verification on the satellite. Walter is ahead of me already. Again. "I'm just going outside and may be some time."

Final words to Sir Robert Falcon Scot from an officer with scurvy, who walked out into a blizard at the South Pole and was never seen again.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
I didn't say buy, perhaps that is what mislead you. I would have thought that:
NOAA wants it, France wants it, even Ukraine wants it. But instead it sits in a box at Goddard Space Flight Center
was clear enough. I'm unaware of any case where one country spends $100 million on cutting edge technology and simply gives it away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.