The mainstream media has inundated us with reports that 2015 was the hottest year ever. But was it?
Of
course not. Many reliable records show that it was warmer in the mediaeval warm
period, the Roman warm period and the bronze age warm period.
Was
it the warmest since we had reasonably accurate records? It all depends on
where you look and how you interpret the data. An excellent place to start
looking is climate4you.com
where Prof Humlum reproduces data from a number of reputable sources.
There
are five internationally recognised temperature records. The most accurate are
the satellite records (a few years ago NASA suggested that they should be the
sole record as they were most accurate) followed by the surface temperature
record from the Hadley Centre in the UK and then two records from the USA
(NASA/GISS and NCDC) that are generally regarded as being the least accurate.
One
of Prof Humlum's charts plots all five records on a single sheet that shows the
running averages of the satellite temperatures and the surface temperatures.
The remarkable thing about this chart is that it shows the two records tracking
each other quite accurately from 1979 when satellite observations started until
about 2008. But from then on the surface temperature records diverge and now
the surface temperature records are about 0.25° warmer than the satellite
records.
If
we believe the more accurate satellite records, 2015 was 0.2 degrees cooler
than 1998. If we believe NASA/GISS, 2015 was warmer than the previous record by
0.13°. Confused?
If
we take +/- 0.1 error margin into account, NASA/GISS shows that 2015 may or may
not have been the warmest year: according to the satellites, it was not.
So
why have many climate scientists and the mainstream media focussed only on the
NASA/GISS surface temperature record and failed to tell us about the error
margin and the other records? The
simple answer is that there are a large number of people in the world whose
scientific reputation, political future, career and/or income depend on
persuading the public that man-made global warming is real and dangerous. They
don't have to conspire together: it is obvious to all of them that they will be
rewarded for sustaining the myth.
Why
have the surface temperature records diverged above the satellite records over
the last few years? The answer seems to lie in recent adjustments to the
surface temperature records. A few months ago the NASA/GISS adjusted past sea
surface temperatures downwards because, they claimed, there had been errors in
the original measurements. While it is true that temperature records do need
adjusting for number of good reasons, it is seriously odd that, in all the
surface temperature records, virtually all of the adjustments result in past
temperatures being pushed downwards and recent temperatures being pushed
upwards. (This has also happened in New Zealand.) Common sense would suggest
that the adjustments should go both ways and, to a large extent, average out.
But
there is something else much more important in the climate debate that has
received no publicity at all. The whole scenario of carbon dioxide causing
dangerous warming is based on the output of computer models that have never
been properly validated and never made accurate predictions. According to the
IPCC, 111 out of 114 model runs predicted temperatures much higher than
actually occurred.
Nobody
bothers to tell us that according to the computer predictions the world should
be 0.4° warmer than it is now. In any other branch of science, models that
yielded such inaccurate results would be abandoned. In climate science, It
seems, they believe the models and massage the data.
In
a world that has hardly warmed and carbon dioxide levels have steadily risen,
hapless taxpayers have paid trillions of dollars to climate scientists,
politicians and carbon traders. Electricity consumers have seen huge increases
in power prices to fund massive subsidies for expensive and useless wind and
solar power and to pay for the generators that are needed when the wind doesn't
blow and the sun doesn't shine.
The
truth is that the increased carbon dioxide has promoted plant growth, reduced
desertification been a huge benefit to agriculture worldwide. It might have
warmed the world by a tiny and beneficial amount.
When
will we see a return to reason?
5 comments:
Apparently it was so warm during the Roman occupation of England they used to grow grapes. Next time I land at Heathrow I will be looking out the window for rows of grapes.
What may(or may not) be of far more significance is what scientists are saying about the recent behaviour of the sun's core and it's relationship with sunspots.
Not looking forward to any sort of ice age, even a "little" one.
You spelt it wrong: "Hottest Year EVA!"TM
"It's worse than we thought"TM
At the end of Bryan’s letter on the things we know, but are not so, he asks the question " When will we return to reason ” ?
I think we are returning to reason now, Bryan . . For years there seemed no answer to the onslaught of the hoax that ‘ Man made this global warming // the science is settled “
It became ‘de rigeur’ and then established political and social dogma that we were responsible for doing what only the sun does best, that is creating heat..
And we also became responsible for creating toxic levels of the dangerous pollutant poison called Carbon dioxide.
We ignored the big yellow round thing in the sky, as politically irrelevant.
Climate started in 1956.
People like me had to look for a reasoned analysis of the so called established fact science , and we have come to a different position..
Which is that a constant diet and barrage of propaganda, media trash, and hysteria will indeed establish truth and belief in the heads of most of us, and even qualified scientists .
It works in any war of ideas // keep repeating what they should believe until they do believe it at the level of hysteria.
The New world Order.
Now the reasoning thinkers are writing some real facts :
The IPCC creates massaged data //
Plants love water vapour and CO2 , and that is why we invented the Green house //
We can not trust anyone within the political power structure nor their political “scientists’ //
The united nations is not united and is an expensive and ludicrous sham //
The IPCC is a ludicrous and fraudulent sham and disgrace to mankind //
Looking back on hysterical established scientific fact, we know that Genetic modification would lead woman to growing having three breasts and breeding monster children, then die, and that the combination of a cow and a frog was going to be particularly lethal.
Now we laugh at it ,
We also laugh at the Inconvenient truth that is a mill stone around the ambitious and ruthless Al Gore’s head, and making him a laughing stock.
We really do know that the fame of the propagandists of global fear will be short lived, and their children will learn to lie about them and reinvent the truth.
For good reading, people can google up Bryan Leyland // consulting Engineer and his efforts on behalf of reason in the face of those who know what we should
believe .
I do not know Bryan Leyland personally.
SOME LIKE IT HOT, AND SOME LIKE IT COLD,
BUT THE UN LIKE IT THEIR WAY ALL THE TIME.
Great piece Bryan, alas neither our Politicians who unlike the rest of us are frozen in the time warp of the United Nations together with our compliant Media, have any intention of altering their position on Human Climate Change.
A ray of hope still stands; for as they say “The truth will out”, the trouble with that phrase is the question of whether we have enough years left to realise or indeed enjoy it--- one way or the other!!!
However our Human Climate Change fanatics, like most fanatics are guided by the principal that they are right; and that those whose thinking and way of life differs from their idea of living, are in fact old fashion conservative duddies. The climatic truth (as they see it) is bound up as a religion; a vision of a pure earth-like primeval wilderness, a Garden of Eden, preferably without either Adam or Eve to despoil its beauty.
One might even note that our local evangelical climatic fearists (is there such a word?) also support returning this New Zealand, to a pre European sanctuary. Personally I draw the line at cannibalism, still to give them credit ,most of them seem to be vegetarians; well at least they look like vegetarians.
Human Climate Change is merely a tool to enhance the inevitable march to a United Nations World Government dominated by the ivory towers of a vast ever increasing bureaucracy, far removed from the mundane everyday practical life that most of live.
The main victim in all this will be as ever, our Western Democracy.
Brian
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.