Warmest Year Evah (Except For The Others!)
By Paul Homewood
The BBC gleefully reports on the annual “warmest year evah” circus.
Manmade climate change is now dwarfing the influence of natural trends on the climate, scientists say.
Last year was the second or third hottest year on record – after 2016 and on a par with 2015, the data shows.
But those two years were affected by El Niño – the natural phenomenon centred on the tropical Pacific Ocean which works to boost temperatures worldwide.
Take out this natural variability and 2017 would probably have been the warmest year yet, the researchers say.
The acting director of the UK Met Office, Prof Peter Stott, told BBC News: "It’s extraordinary that temperatures in 2017 have been so high when there’s no El Niño. In fact, we’ve been going into cooler La Niña conditions.
"Last year was substantially warmer than 1998 which had a very big El Niño.
"It shows clearly that the biggest natural influence on the climate is being dwarfed by human activities – predominantly CO₂ emissions."
Figures were published on Thursday by the world’s three main agencies monitoring global temperatures: the UK Met Office and the two US organisations – the US space agency (Nasa) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa).
Their datasets are compiled from many thousands of temperature measurements taken across the globe, from all continents and all oceans.
Temperatures for 2017 and 2015 are virtually identical.
Nasa rates 2017 the second hottest year, and Noaa and the Met Office judge it to be the third hottest since records began in 1850.
The Met Office HadCRUT4 global temperature series shows that 2017 was 0.99C (±0.1C) above "pre-industrial" levels – that’s taken as the average over the period 1850-1900.
It was 0.38 (±0.1C) above the 1981-2010 average.
The Exeter-based agency calculates that the El Niño event spanning 2015-2016 contributed around 0.2C to the annual average for 2016. But that influence was gone by 2017.
Nasa has done an additional statistical analysis that corrects its dataset for the effects of El Niño/La Niña – to smooth out the "lumps and bumps" these patterns introduce into the long-term trend.
When this is done, 2017 becomes the warmest year on record.
Nasa’s Dr Gavin Schmidt said this "idealised scenario" underscored the central message: "The warmth that we’re seeing, and the trends that we’re seeing, are independent of this variation in the Pacific and while the ins and outs of any particular year are affected by it – it’s the long-term trend that’s really pushing these numbers up."
Nasa says it is possible statistically to remove the natural warming and cooling effects that come from El Niño and La Niña. When this smoothing is done (red line), 2017 comes out warmer than any previous year. The grey columns denote major volcanic eruptions that ordinarily depress the warming trend.
The World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said the long-term temperature trend was far more important than the ranking of individual years.
"That trend is an upward one," he said. “Seventeen of the 18 warmest years on record have all been during this century, and the degree of warming during the past three years has been exceptional.
“Arctic warmth has been especially pronounced and this will have profound and long-lasting repercussions on sea levels, and on weather patterns in other parts of the world.”
Prof Tim Osborn from the University of East Anglia said climate models were now accurately predicting which places would warm fastest. He explained: “We’re seeing greater warming over land and in the Arctic regions, and less warming in the sub-polar oceans.
“These are what we expect from our understanding of climate physics, and this is what we observe.”
He said uncertainties arising from incomplete global coverage of weather stations had been included in the calculations.
Commenting on the figures, Bob Ward, from the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics, pointed out that this year governments were due to start assessing the gap between their collective ambitions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the goals of the Paris climate agreement, to stabilise temperature rise below 2C, and as close to 1.5 as possible.
“The record temperature should focus the minds of world leaders, including President Trump, on the scale and urgency of the risks that people, rich and poor, face around the world from climate change," he said.
Earlier this week, a study in the journal Nature concluded that climate change needed urgently to be tackled, but forecast that apocalyptic predictions of a temperature rise of 6C by 2100 would not come about.
Prof Richard Allan from the University of Reading said: “Rather than warming being inconsequential or catastrophic, as some have suggested, we can be sure societies are facing a dangerous temperature rise, but one which we still have time to fix.
“The conclusions confirm that human-caused climate change is a serious concern.
“But if we act now with sustained and substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, societies will still be able to avoid much of the most dangerous climate change predicted by computer simulations.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42736397
One naturally has every right to be suspicious when supposedly honest and impartial “scientists” turn into activists for political change. It is not up to them to decide which courses of action it is right for societies to take.
But to the facts!
To start with, the claim that 2017 was not an El Nino year is simply not true.
NOAA themselves show quite a sharp El Nino episode from March to May, albeit a short one.
The official threshold for an El Nino is 0.500 on the MEI scale. In April/May it peaked at 1.455, almost as high as the 2010 event.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
The raised SSTs can also be clearly seen in the first half of the year, moving from east to west.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/
La Nina conditions have only just barely appeared in December, but it will take up to 6 months for these to affect global temperatures.
This El Nino episode certainly had some effect during the year, and it is totally dishonest for this not to be mentioned in the official reports.
It is also important to factor that the record El Nino of 2015/16 has not been followed by La Nina, which would have resulted in a sharp drop in temperatures. This is not actually that uncommon – for instance the 2002 El Nino was followed by two broadly neutral years, and then another El Nino in 2005.
As a result, global temperatures did not fall away until the La Nina of 2007/8.
In basic terms, El Ninos result in the release of heat into the atmosphere, which has previously been stored below the sea surface. This energy comes from the sun, and carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it at all.
But what happens to that extra heat? It does not simply disappear.
As NASA explains, this heat is lost at the poles, where there is a negative energy imbalance:
The differences in reflectivness (albedo) and solar illumination at different latitudes lead to net heating imbalances throughout the Earth system. At any place on Earth, the net heating is the difference between the amount of incoming sunlight and the amount heat radiated by the Earth back to space (for more on this energy exchange see Page 4). In the tropics there is a net energy surplus because the amount of sunlight absorbed is larger than the amount of heat radiated. In the polar regions, however, there is an annual energy deficit because the amount of heat radiated to space is larger than the amount of absorbed sunlight.
This map of net radiation (incoming sunlight minus reflected light and outgoing heat) shows global energy imbalances in September 2008, the month of an equinox. Areas around the equator absorbed about 200 watts per square meter more on average (orange and red) than they reflected or radiated. Areas near the poles reflected and/or radiated about 200 more watts per square meter (green and blue) than they absorbed. Mid-latitudes were roughly in balance. (NASA map by Robert Simmon, based on CERES data.)
The net heating imbalance between the equator and poles drives an atmospheric and oceanic circulation that climate scientists describe as a “heat engine.” (In our everyday experience, we associate the word engine with automobiles, but to a scientist, an engine is any device or system that converts energy into motion.) The climate is an engine that uses heat energy to keep the atmosphere and ocean moving. Evaporation, convection, rainfall, winds, and ocean currents are all part of the Earth’s heat engine.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php
The Earth’s heat engine gradually moves the El Nino heat imbalance from the Tropics to the poles, where it radiates into space. The higher than average temperatures we have recently seen in the Arctic simply reflect this perfectly natural process, a sign that the heat engine is working as it should.
But without La Nina conditions, which would help to reduce tropical atmosphere temperatures, global temperatures remain at a heightened level for some time, until that excess heat has finally dissipated.
The effect of this can be seen in the lower troposphere data from UAH. which is the most comprehensive and reliable dataset we have, (even though the BBC fail to mention it).
Although temperatures are still higher than prior to the 2016/16 El Nino, they are still well below 1998.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
By contrast, the NOAA, GISS and HADCRUT sets, quoted by the BBC, all share the same sparse, heavily adjusted and UHI affected data.
Large parts of the world have little or no coverage, even now. As we know, the coverage was even poorer decades ago.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/
It is laughable that they can seriously claim they know the Earth’s temperature to such small margins.
And, as has been pointed out, they always like to talk in terms of anomalies, to make things seem more alarming.
According to NOAA, the average global temperature in 2017 was 14.74C, so in terms of actual temperatures rather than anomalies the trend looks like this:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
Given that temperatures, even in temperate zones, can fluctuate from well below freezing to 40C and more from season to season, such an imperceptibly small increase since 1881 is impossible for anybody to actually notice in their day to day lives.
A vastly different story to the one painted by the BBC.
As for the supposed precision of these global temperatures, we only have to go back to 1997, when NOAA said the temperature was 62.45F, (16.9C). You might notice that this is considerably higher than last year’s 14.74C.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
It is easy for NOAA to say they have “changed their baseline”, but it makes a mockery of the claim that they actually know the average global temperature in any meaningful sense at all.
The use of anomalies of course allows NOAA and co to hide the adjustments they have been making to historical data.
But there is one thing in climate science that is very certain. The usual suspects will be back this time next year, proclaiming that global warming is worse than ever!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
On exactly what basis, FFS, is the 1850-1900 average “pre-industrial”. And given the air pollution that was affecting most of industrial Europe for the following century — I mean, have you seen the dark, satanic mills and the smoke and fog of two wars — is it surprising that the clean air of the second half of the 20th century let in enough sunlight to make a difference?
Thank the good Lord (and I mean that!) for the increased warmth, and the increased light, and the increased growth from increased CO2, and the increased health and wealth and longevity that the miserabilist eco-luddites and their creepy little hangers-on like Black and Horribin and Ward would seek to deprive us of!
I’ll pass the collection plate round later. Give generously!
Without debating some of the evidence presented…. “But if we act now with sustained and substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, societies will still be able to avoid much of the most dangerous climate change predicted by computer simulations.”
“We” have acted? The Paris Accord. Would some of those who keep repeating that “act now” mantra tell us how long these sustained, huge cuts will take and what it might cost these societies? Never mind El-Ninos and La-Ninas. Never mind the constantly adjusted temperatures…The science is settled, right? How long to capture and bury hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 somewhere and safely? Who will be around to check on that? Shouldn’t that be part of the dialog with us stakeholders?
We can never go back to fossil fuels unless we can sequester the CO2. That’s what those who believe say—we cannot add in CO2 that is outside the “normal” energy budget. This is forever unless technology develops that removes the release of the CO2.
(I disagree with AGW, but this is what the theory says.)
Once we sequester all the CO2, all our problems will be over. All life on Earth will be extinguished. CO2 is plant food, which explains why we pump it into greenhouses. If we can just sequester enough to drop the CO2 by a little over 50%, we can even solve the population ‘problem’, as crops will be too weak to feed the poor. Only the wealthy who can afford what food is available will survive.
Excellent, structured rebuttal of the garbage that is all over the MSM today.
Thank you.
And, no, I for one haven’t seen a single person in the media today even begin to challenge any of the narrative.
“The Fakest Year On Record At NASA And NOAA”
It is all very well, but Tony Heller has been “preaching to the converted” for years, and unfortunately it isn’t making any difference, because unfortunately the MSM doesn’t take him seriously.
I doubt if anyone at the BBC has even heard of him.
Thanks for that.
Maybe the BBC and Harrabin should be challenged on their claim that 2017 was not an El Nino year?
They seem to have got it from Peter Stott, so they’ll just refer to him
I think the climate academics in their Universities and Research Centres know well that their scam has failed. It was millennial hysteria that started in about 1985 and has made a great living for many.
What is critical to them now is that we go through with what they demand and when things become blindingly obvious to the masses that nothing is actually going wrong they can claim that they saved the world with windmills.
That we do nothing and expose them is their worst nightmare. That we declare that these “emperors” are stark naked must be their secret terror.
The tragedy to me as a real scientist is that they have already trashed the reputation and standing of our most precious intellectual achievement. I think it might take a century to recover and heaven knows what mess we might be in by then.
Malcolm,
A valuable observation. As a layman, I was seduced by media savvy scientists for decades. But when the climate didn’t seem to be responding as predicted, I started digging, and wound up here and on a number of other sceptical sites.
I am not alone.
And the value of sceptical scientists remains unsullied, because scepticism is the whole reason you exist.
Truth will out, as I believe the saying goes.
I’m right there with you, HotScot. I too spent many, many years being angry at the diminishment of our shared environment and wagging a sanctimonious finger in others’ faces. I now feel embarrassed about that and more than a little miffed for having my faith in “them” ill used. I do not like being played.
Hot Scot
Unfortunately we are of the few that bother to “dig”.
Most people I know have no curiosity and believe what they are told by the MSM while playing Candy Crush or being “seduced” by some other mindless activity.
Unfortunately, the only time they pay attention to the subject is after some natural disaster – and then they are captivated by the alarmist’s reporting.
czechout
BBC Radio News yesterday had the completely fake headline story
“The world’s leading climate agencies have said for the first time that global warming caused by humans now dwarfs natural temperature changes”.
No climate agency said any such thing.
Needless to say, Harrabin was involved.
Even if everything else were true, it is obvious that “dwarfing” is untrue. The fact that you have to remove El Niño effects shows that.
Just to make sure you realise actually data is irrelevant. If temps do fall in the future it will only be an illusion!
‘NASA Scientists Suggest Future Temps Will Create The ‘Impression Of A Global Warming Hiatus’’
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/18/nasa-2017-global-warming-hiatus/
Excellent article Paul. However, until such time as the MSM and the bureaucracy are not controlled by the Green Blob, the climate change scam will continue unabated. We can shout as much as we like, but it won’t make a difference, as we are not heard or are ignored. The alternative that might stop the scam is a return to prolonged colder conditions.
Perfect summary. When the same group of people charged with calculating a global temperature cannot even make their various charts and graphs and press releases all mesh with the same numbers and talking points then there’s no real reason to believe anything that they’re putting out for us peons to fret about.
Posted this on facebook with a challenge forconstructive comment. I await the the antagonism.!!
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
I’m a little confused and I’m sure it’s down to my non scientific background. For years I listened to “climate change experts” telling me that the modest rise in temperatures in the last 50 years is entirely man made and not attributable to natural causes. Yet this BBC article seems to (accidentally) concede that natural variations such as El Nino do impact on temperature? The modern world is so confusing isn’t it? But these are scientists so I suppose if they flatly contradict themselves it must be rooted in some objective scientific logic that is beyond my intellectual understanding.
The Globull Warming Gestapo stormtroopers are taking advantage of the room temperature IQ of the Low Info mob to turn them into useful idiots for “the cause”…
The hypocrisy of the hype is that it is established fact that the earth has warmed naturally at somewhere between 0.5 and 0.9 degrees K / century since the 1850s, depending upon the adjustments and UHI considerations applied.
This fact means that temperature extremes will obviously be higher than they were earlier in the progress of the warming as they start from a higher base. It appears that the deviations from the increasing value are fairly steady with the exception of the 1930s when the dT/dt values were highest.
Tremendous post Paul and total rebuttal of all the usual suspects.
Like a plastic bottle constantly returning on the tide you just can’t get rid, and riding the crest of the tidal wave of climunism eejits another beeboid horrorbin’s extravagant and absolutely chicken farm droppings proclamation, horrorbin – what a plant pot head he is.
“Maybe the BBC and Harrabin should be challenged on their claim that 2017 was not an El Nino year?”
Actually, they are right. 2015 was the El-Nino, 2017 is La-Nina..and it still is in 2018. Cooling.
Did you bother to read this post before making this stupid comment?
Except all of that is wrong. El Ninis don’t fall neatly into calendar years, and their effects on temperature do not vanish as soon as El Niño conditions go back to normal.
Or perps you think you can pick up a baking tray with your bare hand after it’s been in the oven for a while – after all, it’s not being heated any more so it must be cool, right?
‘in imperceptibly small increase since 1881’
Which is an arbitrary starting point anyway. The world isn’t 137 years old.
Regarding baselines, I found this essay of interest. Examines the selection of the initial temperature/base level for the likes of the Paris agreements and the lack of global measurement coverage available at those times.
“The Fuzziness Of The Paris Climate Targets
Date: 12/11/17
John McLean, Melbourne, Australia
Governments that signed the Paris Climate Agreement and committed to making payments to the Green Climate Fund have done so at their own peril. The absence of key data, methods of calculation and key thresholds regarding future temperature means that the potential for further financial liabilities is very significant.”
More at:
https://www.thegwpf.com/the-fuzziness-of-the-paris-climate-targets/
If we permit global warming zealots like Dr. James “Thumbs On The Temperature Scale” Hansen and his successor Dr. Gavin Schmidt to perpetually revise the surface temperature data, every year will always be the hottest year.
Satellite data says otherwise!
GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE PRIMER
Global Warming is Dead
The argument about global warming has morphed into climate change. This
subtle shift was necessary because the warming as evidenced by satellite
measurements has stopped since 1998, even while CO2 concentrations have
continued to increase. It has become increasingly obvious CO2 is not
driving the warming, the climate, or anything else.
The hysteria about melting ice caps, sea level rise, stronger storms,
droughts, floods, forest fires, etc., has not materialized:
* ice continues to accumulate at record levels in the Antarctic wherein
lies 90% of the world’s ice inventory. Meanwhile, the Arctic Ice Cap
has survived decades of predictions of its demise.
* sea level rise according to Nils-Axil Morner, the world’s leading
authority on sea level change, has not changed at all.
* annual accumulated cyclonic energy is at historical lows, as are the
overall number and strength of hurricanes and tornadoes.
* Droughts and floods continue their march in tune with oceanic
oscillations, such as, La Ninas and the Indian Ocean Dipole.
* Forest fire activity remains at the mercy of lightning strikes,
underbrush stockpiles and interference with nature by humans.
Climate Change has no Evidence
There is not one piece of empirical evidence linking human activities to
the climate – NOT ONE. The only arguments for climate change are
anecdotes, computer projections, Hockey Sticks, and consensus.
* Anecdotes are short, obscure historical or biographical accounts.
Anecdotes cannot be traced to one another or anything else. Anecdotes
are not proof.
* Computer projections are Ludic fallacies based on dubious initial
conditions. The computer projections have failed, because their only
input is greenhouse gases. Computer projections are not proof.
* Hockey Sticks are the cobbling together of two unrelated proxy data
sets. These FrankenGraphs, which would have received an “F” in JHS
science class 50 years ago, are incredibly embraced by many scientists
today. Hockey Sticks are artificial fabrications, not proof.
* Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
Millennia and centuries ago the consensus believed the Earth was the
center of the Universe and Solar System. Consensus is not proof.
To the contrary, there is abundant evidence proving the climate has
changed often and sometimes violently, all without any human influence.
The Historical Temperature Record
For the last 600,000,000 years temperatures have hovered around 12C
about 14% of the time, around 22C about 50% of the time, and somewhere
in between 36% of the time. Right now we are at 14.5C, about 25% above
the bottom of the historical range. (Ref: Dr. Christopher R. Scotese‘s
PALEOMAP Project at http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). We are no
where near any temperature tipping point.
The 0.4C rise in temperature since the Industrial Revolution (IR) pales
in comparison to the 1.6C increase of the Medieval Warming Period (WP),
the 2.5C increase of the Roman WP, and the 3.2C increase of the Minoan
WP using the IR as a baseline. The average temperature has been
declining for the last 6,000 years. (Alley, R.B. 2000, The Younger
Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, Quaternary Science
Reviews, 19:213-226.) We are at the very end of the present 10,500 year
old Interglacial WP. After this comes about 90,000 years of snow, ice,
advancing glaciers and incredible loss of life. Enjoy the warmth while
you can.
The Recent Temperature Record
The temperature data for the last 100 years has been twisted and
contorted by scientists to comply with the global warming agenda. Under
the guise of ‘homogenizing’ data sets, NOAA has chopped off the cooler
temperatures of the late 1800s, thus making trends afterwards look
warmer. Also, the percentage of fake temperature measurement stations
since 1993 has increased from 5% to 43%, over an 800% increase. A new
fake station was created in Africa which helped conclude that 2016 was
the warmest year ever. This fake science from fake data has created an
ever-increasing temperature record, when the satellite data says since
1998 there has been no warming at all.
The Historical CO2 Record
About 550,000,000 years ago CO2 was 7,000 ppm and has wound it‘s way
down to where it is today, near it’s historic low (Berner, R.A. and Z.
Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over
Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204,
February 2001.) Below 100 ppm photosynthesis ceases. We are very close
to the tipping point of Earth turning into a lifeless snowball with too
little CO2 for plants to reproduce. On the other hand, plants thrive in
nurseries kept at CO2 concentrations of 1,000 ppm. Thanks to recent CO2
increases, vegetation has increased 11% in arid areas of the world.
The Recent CO2 Record
The famous Mauna Loa CO2 measurements began in 1958, coincidentally at a
historic low CO2 level of 315 ppm. In 1942 and again in 1822 CO2 was
440 ppm, 40 ppm higher than today. (Ernst-Georg Beck, 180 Years of
Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis By Chemical Methods, Energy & Environment,
Volume 18 No. 2, 2007, Fig. 2).
For the last 1400 years there have been 6 distinctive cycles of CO2
concentration as registered in plant leaf stomata proxy data. Each
cycle is about 230 years in duration with a 300 ppm minimum and 400 ppm
maximum. As of 2016 400 ppm was reached, the top of the cycle. If
history repeats, expect this deVries cycle to reverse and produce lower
CO2 readings over the next 115 or so years.
To say we are nearing runaway, irreversible global warming due to recent
paltry CO2 increases is ludicrous.
Temperatures and Fossil Fuel Use
For the last 150 years there has not always been a correlation between
fossil fuel use and temperature. Between 1940 and 1970 while CO2
increased, fossil fuel use leveled off and slightly decreased.
(Klyashtorin and Lyubushim, Energy & Environment, Vol 14, No 6, Fig 1).
So, for 30 years while less fossil fuel was burned, more CO2 was being
generated. The question is: how can this be?
Temperatures and Solar Irradiance
There have been three global cooling and three global warming periods
within the last 250 years. These periods all march to the tune of
changing solar irradiance, not CO2 concentrations. (Douglas V. Hoyt and
Kenneth H. Schatten, A Discussion of Plausible Solar Irradiance
Variations, 1700-1992, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, No.
All, Pages 18,895-18,906, November 1, 1993). Isn’t the correlation
obvious? It’s the Sun, not CO2.
Greenhouse Gas Effect (GGE)
Only 3.27% of all CO2 generated comes from man, the other 96.73% comes
from nature. Only 0.001% of water vapor comes from man; the other
99.999% comes from nature. Water vapor by a factor of 26 has more of a
spectral absorption bandwidth or GGE than does CO2. After adding the
contributions of methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs it turns out only
0.28% of the GGE comes from man, the other 99.72% comes from nature. If
man ceased to exist, the reduction in the GGE would be one part out of
357, or barely noticeable.
Planetary Mechanics – THE Driver of Climate Change
Planetary mechanics is the study of orbiting celestial bodies, including
changes to the solar system barycenter, spin orbit coupling, and changes
in angular momentum. It is the very interaction of the motion of the
planets, Sun and moon which dictate our climate and our weather. This
isn’t theory. This is astrophysics.
Jupiter, Venus and Earth are called the Tidal Planets for good reason.
They control the Sun’s tide and its 11 year sunspot cycle. There are
many harmonics of this basic 11 year Schwab cycle. There is the 22 year
Hale magnetic cycle. There is the 44 year Solar Conveyor Belt cycle.
Every 88 years there is the Gleisberg cycle – an amplitude modulation of
Schwab cycles. There is the 230 deVries cycle. The 1,440 year Bond or
Ice Debris Cycle. The 2,200 year Hallstadt Cycle.
There are numerous other cycles built from combinations of solar, lunar
and planetary cycles. Every 18 years there is the Lunar Tidal Cycle
which corresponds to abundance cycles on Earth. About every 60 years
there is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation cycle, the most powerful
climate force on the planet.
Then there is Uranus and Neptune (U-N) with their 178 year orbit beat
cycle. The Sun also operates in 360 year cycles, a harmonic of the U-N
cycle. Each 360 year cycle is composed of Regular Oscillations,
followed by a Grand Solar Maximum, followed by a Grand Solar Minimum.
This totally predictable 360 year cycle has resulted in the Oort,
Sporer, Maunder, Dalton and other unnamed Minimums within the past two
millennia.
In 2009, we entered the next Grand Solar Minimum – the Landscheidt
Minimum. This isn’t unfounded speculation. This is traceable,
predictable planetary mechanics (Duhau and de Jager, The Forthcoming
Grand Minimum of Solar Activity, Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8,
1983-1999). From this point forward be prepared for relentless colder
winter temperatures which will reach bottom around 2040. Along the way
there will be ever-increasing fuel scarcity, crop failures, food
shortages, famines and loss of life of millions. The next Little Ice
Age has begun. No amount of pithy CO2 increase is going to provide
enough life-saving warmth.
Planetary mechanics is the elephant in the room of climate change. The
planets control the climate of the Sun which, combined with the Moon,
control the climate on the Earth. CO2 is only a flea on the elephant’s
ass coming along for the ride.
Climate Change is Big Business
The myth of global warming, climate change, climate change catastrophe –
or whatever they are calling it today – continues, because of the
trillions of dollars that would be lost and millions of leaf-raking jobs
eliminated, if this charade were to be exposed.
* Banks and brokerage houses reap huge commissions from it.
* Scam artists like Maurice Strong thrive on it, creating schemes like
carbon trading which suck billions of dollars from consumers’ wallets.
* Politicians need it to save us from imaginary hobgoblins and to
justify tax increases to fund largesse programs that garner votes.
* Scientists keep busy by grazing at the trough of free grant money made
available, but only if it can be shown that man is the cause.
* Corporations need it to sell cures for which there is no disease, and
fatten up their bottom lines.
* The alternative energy, Green Building and sustainability industries
came into existence and thrive off of it.
* The news media needs it to keep the frenzy going, the ratings up, and
ad revenue coming in.
* The United Nations needs it to forge its role as the leader in One
World Governance.
* Environmentalists, anti-industrialists, and other Communists need it
in order to cut the legs out from underneath the evil, Capitalist
United States and level the playing field for the world‘s less
fortunate nations.
This is the hideous symbiosis of individuals, groups, businesses and
governments that need the myth of climate change kept alive for their
very financial survival. They are not going to go away, so long as they
can continue to mainline on the juice. It is time to yank the tube out
of their arms.
And one last thing: According to ice core records, the CO2 increases
occur about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases. That is, CO2
doesn’t cause rising temperatures, rising water temperatures cause CO2
to gas out of solution from the world’s oceans into the atmosphere. CO2
is not a driver of climate. CO2 is a passenger.
Get the facts visit:
http://www.windpowerfraud.com
http://www.aconvenientfabrication.com
Charles S. Opalek, PE
Brilliant, thank you.
This is a keeper.
Got to agree that the article and CSO’s response are really useful as summaries of the villains and their outpourings and real facts of the debate.
Suggest that Euan Mearns contacts Nils-Axel Morner, who organised a great conference related to geological evidence last year (if not in contact yet of course).
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
When the peak beings to slide, what will they have left to twitter on about
The World Meteorological Organisation recommends defining the temperature of a location for a 24 hour period as the average of the maximum and minimum temperatures recorded during that period.
So what is the contribution from heat stored in the buildings and roads raising the overnight minimum temperatures and what contribution is caused by the heat given off by vehicles and leaked from heaters going full blast in the winter? These will all effect the temperature record and because the population is growing and there are more buildings, roads and more vehicles the temperature measurements will rise. S how much of the rise is due to human activity and how much due to the alleged CO2 effect? Also how much of the ocean temperatures are raised by underwater volcanoes and heat tubes from the Earth’s mantle? I’m told these effects are negligible but as no one has yet quantified them how can they know they are negligible?
Paul, your graph showing NOAA annual global temps for 1891 too present … how did you determine that? The NOAA link only shows departures …
NOAA’s State of the Climate Report states that 2017 was 0.84C above the 20thC average of 13.9C.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713
My graph simply adds the anomalies onto that 13.9C
Thank you for answering… I was reading “over” the obvious.
Speaking of SHITHOLES, the “scientific community” and its respective faculty lounges have overwhelmed humanity with their unambiguous ASSHOLERY.
Hot water for Harrabin…
BBC GETS IT WRONG AGAIN ON GLOBAL WARMING
Date: 24/01/18 Press Release, Global Warming Policy Foundation
London, 24 January: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has lodged a new complaint to the BBC about its misleading reporting on global warming.
The BBC’s News at Ten programme on the 18th of January 2018 contained two factual errors in its report of the global temperature of 2017.
The errors were in the cue to the report by Roger Harrabin, and in the report itself.
http://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-gets-it-wrong-again-on-global-warming/
For some reason, I’m having a lot of trouble with the record temperature being claimed by NOAA, NASA, the Met Office, and others. I’ve been collecting this information for a few years and here’s what I have (along with the links, should anyone want to check):
1896 – 15.0 degrees C – Svante Arrhenius
20th Century average: 13.9 degrees C – NOAA
1975 – 15.0 degrees C – Stephen H. Schneider
1979 – 15.0 degrees C – Christian Schönwiese
1981 – 15.0 degrees C – James Hansen
1986 – 15.0 degrees C – Spiegel
1988/89 – 15.4 degrees C – Der Spiegel, James Hansen
1990 – 14.84 degrees C – British Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia
1995 – 15.39 degrees C – NASA
1995 – 16.83 degrees C – NOAA
1996 – 14.46 degrees C – British Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia
1997 – 16.92 degrees C – NOAA
2013 – 14.99 degrees C – NASA/NOAA
2016 – 18.84 degrees C – German-based European Institute for Climate and Energy
2017 – 14.74 degrees C – NOAA
Am I the only one having a problem with these numbers?