January 28, 2017

Yet another Spurious Claim of "Hottest Year on Record"

JTimothy Birdnow

It's as inevitable as the sun rising. Every year our friends at NOAA and NASA tabulate the data gleaned from an ever-decreasing number of weather stations to determine the planetary temperature. Many stations have been closed due to obsolesence or budget constraints and their data is produced based on an average of the two closest stations, which may be as much as fifty or a hundred miles away. Other stations find themselves surrounded by mushrooming cities and the Urban Heat Island Effect - a situation where waste heat from many sources - air conditioners, furnaces, automobiles, rotting garbage, sewage, etc. as well as heat retained by blacktop parking lots - artificially increases the temperature being recorded. Anthony Watts made his name surveying these stations, and showed how ridiculous it was to rely on them. See www.surfacestations.org.

But it matters not to the government agencies entrusted with the record keeping; they live on government budgets and need the "crisis" to remain relevant. In fact, Noaa has been fudging the historical record to claim a warming trend, one that disappears when the data is not "corrected" by them.

In fact, using NASA's own data it is obvious that there has been no warming for at least 18 yeears. Satellite data never showed any, although last year NASA tried to "correct" the satellite record to show warming. But Roy Spencer absolutely demolished the new technique, showing it was seriously biased in favor of a warming trend.

In point of fact, all metrics are up; polar ice - both arctic and antarctic - are up, with sea ice increasing at both poles and land ice rebounding even in Greenland. And there has never been a rise in tropospheric temperatures, something that all models say must happen.

So we are left to the temperature data. What is the argument? Over a fraction of a degree, and that based on surface station data sets.

So naturally we are forever treated to "hottest on record" when it is obvious to everyone - or should be - that we haven't seen the dramatic temperature rise we have been warned about. We were told that by now planetary temperatures would be at least five degrees above 1979 levels, and yet we are still arguing over whether we have ANY.

Which brings us to the point of this essay; our good global warming chums have announced what they announce very year, that this last year was the "warmest on record". While this was a massive El Nino year (and el nino sucks heat from the oceans, thus increasing temperatures on the surface) it is not

In point of fact, the argument is over hundredths of a degree, and we are using proxy data - tree rings, ice cores, etc. - to provide much of the data from before the satellite era (and even during when we did not have full coverage or good equipment.) It is nonsense. .

In fact, planetary temperatures plummeted a full degree C last year as the el nino ended.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, and one not especially powerful in terms of greenhouse gases. There are only four molecules of co2 in every ten thousand molecules of air. And it has a logarithmic warming, so once the wavelength it traps is saturated it stops warming. That is why Mars is so blasted cold, despite having an atmosphere of 95% carbon dioxide; the small amount of air isn't adequate to hold heat, no matter the composition. If co2 were as powerful as the media would have us believe it would make Mars another Earth. Sadly, Mars is a frozen wasteland, and not likely to change in the near future.

The whole point of this "warmest ever" nonsense is not even to succeed in getting it permanently in the record; it is to get it before the public. The governmental entitites that seek to expand their money and power push this every year with the intentiion of convincing those who do not keep up with this sort of thing. If it is retracted it won't matter; the big news is in the announcement, not the final word. They know this, which is why they do it. And the media is all too happy to promote the end of the world scare.

Global waarming is the equivalent of Orson Well's War of the Worlds scare, only it has lasted an entire generation. And sadly, too many young people really believe it. They don't bother to dig beyond page one of Google, or go past the Yahoo Aews, and buy all this. They believe the "97% of climage scientists agree" mantra without bothering to learn what that means (two studies - both by non-scientists - took small samplings of scientists and asked them if climate was changing and if humans had anything to do with it - well duh! That doesn't mean they believe the doomsday scenario presented to the public. Tjeu a;sp ogmpre tje fact tjat ,amu are afraod tp s[eal i[ = kist asl Joanna Simpson, former NASA climatologist, who ripped her former employer after she retired.)

Global warming has all the earmarks of of a sales con. There is the clear and present danger (yes we've got trouble, right here!), there is the manipulation of facts to present a distorted view of the problem, then the urgency (act now! Time is running out!). The solution to this grave crisis is then provided, one guaranteed to part the mark from his money and whatever else he may have. Global Warming works this same way.

Only the public has been slow to buy it, so there is a need to maintain an air of emergency. What the purveyors of this are trying to do is wait for a normal temperature upswing, then use this to "prove" their theory was correct and we must turn over our money (via carbon taxes and whatnot) as well as our authority to the governmental agencies that will benefit. The EPA is a prime example; they have used this to create all manner of new regulations and fines. It's a wonderful scam from the sales side.

They will keep this up as long as Nature does not cooperate. I never dreamed they would keep this going this long, but they have. Of course the money has been coming in, and George W. Bush never stopped it. Perhaps if Mr. Trump cuts off the funding they will eventually give up? We can only hope.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1092 words, total size 7 kb.




What colour is a green orange?




19kb generated in CPU 0.01, elapsed 0.0112 seconds.
33 queries taking 0.0056 seconds, 61 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.