THE WARMIST YEAR ‘EVER’ – OGM, WE’RE ALL GOING TO FRY !!! The global warming establishment and sections of media are boasting about the claim that 2014 was the “hottest year” with their reports including the obligatory images of hurricane, tornado and drought damage. The ABC is even reporting that Labor and the Greens are pressuring the Government to “do more to combat climate change” – code for; bring back the Carbon tax, create more Government bureaucracies and put Tim Flannery back on the Government payroll. But’s here what they are NOT reporting. • There are four main datasets to record average global temperatures – 2 use satellites (RSS & UAH) the other two rely on ground-based thermometers (HadCRUT4 & GISTEMP) (see attached graph) • The claims of “hottest year”, simply ignores the more accurate satellite data (RSS & UAH) and rely solely of the hotch-potch network of thermometers. • When we have access to satellite data, why some prefer to ignore the more accurate satellites (which monitor atmospheric temperatures over nearly all over of the globe) and instead rely on a hotch-potch network of thermometers that are located in places like carparks, built up cities, and beside airport runways is hard to fathom. • Even using this hotch-potch network of thermometers, the much publicized claim of “hottest year” is based on immeasurable temperature differences of hundredths of a degree. • The “hottest year” claim for calendar year of 2014, is that it was one four hundreds of one degree (0.04C) higher than the previous records set in 2005 and 2010. Yet his immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. And now they admit they are only 38% sure that this was accurate. • Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology stated of “hottest year” claim; “With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade … That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little.’ • However arguing over immeasurable temperature differences and whether any given year is a hundredth of a degree or so above a previous record is simply irrelevant to the real debate on global warming. • No one disputes that the global temperatures have increased since the around mid-1800’s (before Co2 emissions started to rise). And thank goodness, because this global warming has led to a richer and more prosperous world than if the temperatures had of remained the same as during the of Little Ice Age. (It’s worth remembering that during the Little Ice Age, in the winter of 1780, that New York Harbor froze, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island). • But what is relevant to the debate is the ACCURACY of the climate model projections compared to the real world temperature observations. • The entire justification for the ‘climate change industry’ is based upon mathematical modelling and questionable assumptions which produce the climate model projections – and these projections are accurate. • If the climate model projections are found to be inaccurate and over-estimate the amount of global warming – then the multi-trillion dollar climate change industry collapses. (and with it the justification for bigger government and more regulation) • The models work nicely backwards – but hind casting is easy, as you can adapt the model to fit the known outcomes of the past. The legitimately of the models can only be ascertained if they accurately predict the future. (you can create a computer model to pick the winner of the past Melbourne Cups - but the models is useless unless it can accurately predict the future) • In 1990, the IPCC’s climate models predicted that in the future global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century – on continued increased emissions of C02. (and this forecast underwrites the entire climate change industry) • However the real world evidence from the satellites shows the RATE of global warming since 1979 is the equivalent of just 1.3° celsius per century (less than half of the computer model predictions) (see attached graph) making a mockery of the computer models. (And such moderate warming of of just 1.3° celsius per century is likely to be beneficial) • Astrophysicist Dr. David Whitehouse concluded; “It is clear beyond doubt by now that there is a growing discrepancy between computer climate projections and real-world data that questions their ability to produce meaningful projections about future climatic conditions” • If the current 18 year-old real world trend continues to laugh at the computer models, sometime the future (perhaps quite soon) – it will be time to call BS on the models. FOOTNOTE: • As I post this, Im also reading the news from Britain, where there are grave concerns that this year’s big winter freeze - with temperatures plummeting to minus 15C - could kill one Englishman every seven minutes, and there are a million elderly British people at risk of death from the BITTER COLD because they cannot afford to heat their homes. • And at the same time, an analysis puts the cost to the British public of trying to delay the IPCC computer modelled forecasts of global warming at £85 billion in the 10 years to 2021. More than half — about £47.6 billion — will have gone on funding green levies, such as subsidies for wind farms, adding to consumer fuel bills. • And to think, some of those elderly Britons that will die this winter because they arent able afford to warm their homes - the result of power prices being pushed higher by green zealots trying to delay warming by hundredths of a degree - will be survivors of the blitz during WW2.
Posted on: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:54:52 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015