Home

You should first know that I have a unique view of the climate issue.  I question the validity of the conclusions drawn by those on the side of the man-made warming (AGW) theory.

However, I believe all fossil fuel mining should be stopped, immediately.

Not capped, not taxed, not traded, not reduced, not replaced.  CEASED.  That’s how to deal with a crisis, by the way.  Taxes are not usually how we deal with a life shattering crisis, it is how we deal with consumption, want and greed.  Remember to factor that into your equations.

There is a false assumption that if you are against the AGW theory then you are either paid by an oil company or you must think fossil fuel is a great idea.  Rubbish.  Fossil fuel is poison, the carbon dioxide it releases has nothing on benzene, formaldehyde and the many other ways it is polluting our planet.  The mining itself is destroying cultures and the planet.

I bought the whole kit ‘n’ caboodle of an AGW world ending crisis wholesale, because I’m a passionate greenie.  I didn’t just buy the idea, I bought 50 acres of mountain land and figured well, perhaps if the tides rise it will have an ocean view.  I am eternally grateful I bought that land, it has changed my life.  But I no longer buy the current dogma as it has been given to the twits we call politicians.

That’s not to say I reject it.  I just don’t buy anything completely anymore.  I recommend this approach, as I’ve found one only ends up the fool if one sticks rigidly to one side of something like one has any clue what is going on.  We don’t.  Now I have questions.  And it is from the perspective of someone who has seen both sides of this issue that I can share an oft-needed perspective on it.

If either an oil company OR a vested interest “green” company wants to pay me for my thoughts, hey, by all means, let me know and I’ll open a bank account.  Seriously.  But currently, I am not supported by any company.

The idea that only those opposed to AGW have vested interests is naive.  And naivety is not cute in adults.  This new era in energy sourcing in our history is about who is going to lose (miners, oil companies, et al) but more importantly it is about who is going to gain (environmental organisations, green fuel, et al).  And the gains are in the trillions of dollars.  This is the new oil strike, so it is no surprise that the original oilers, the Rockefellers, back the agenda, as do oil companies (surprise surprise?).

If I had five cents for every time someone ignored the complete science of planetary climatology on the basis of “oh looky here, he was once paid by Shell!!” I’d be rolling in at least three bucks by now.  I’ve learned that it is at this point I close the discussion as respectfully as possible because I’m dealing with someone who is shut off from information that challenges their paradigm.  Talking to such people is like talking to a wall, only less civilised because walls don’t insist I’m an irresponsible moron who should stop asking questions, bow down before the flawless scientists and suck down the media sermon with ketchup.  And God bless them all because they are passionate greenies just like me, and lo, not everyone had the advantage of an upbringing as laden in science as mine was.

Those with the biggest vested interests currently reside within the AGW movement, including the scientists behind all the data our politicians use to make global decisions; the scientists rely on global warming being a man-made problem or they’re out of a very lucrative, highly respected job.

For more information on why I recommend going off the grid, boycotting all external energy sources and releasing your need for babysitting from governments click here. (if that isn’t a link, the page isn’t done yet).

Let’s Look At the Facts…

The temperature data we have been given all start around the date of 1880.  This is an example of cherry picking a start date.  Cherry picking a date allows us to show evidence in favour of our own agenda without actually lying.

It is a very common thing to do.  It can be found in all areas inside and outside of science to make a point and it is also very simple.  Just find an area on a chart that goes up, or down, depending on the point you’re trying to make, and use that excerpt of the data.  Most of the time, it is a kind of “zooming in”, and the only way to beat this method of data massaging is to zoom OUT, to get the bigger picture.

The following is a chart we all know and love.  It is taken straight from the NASA chart page, and if you click the graph, you will go to that page.  If you do that, be sure to take notice of the fact that almost all the charts start at 1880 and those that don’t, only zoom in further to a more recent date.

NASA Temperature Data

That chart can be confirmed on most mainstream sites including wikipedia.

wiki temperature record

Look at the charts above.  There are two sharp increases on the graph.  The first is between 1920 and 1940, the second is between 1980 and 2000.  Both of 20 year lengths.  Both of the same increment (2 points).

If one is paying attention (a rarity indeed) one will squint askance and beg the question: What caused the 1920 warming?  I’ve asked several people this exact question and the answers are always quite reaching and some are outright ridiculous and this is because there is no answer that furthers the carbon dioxide theory.

Apparently I was not alone in spotting this inconsistency:

Abstract:
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995-2005) warming period with the previous (1920-1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 – 2005.

… a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise.

This is an excerpt from Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005, Petr Chylek, M. K. Dubey, G. Lesins, 2006.  Cited at NASA amongst others.

More data comments can be found at the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Zooming Out – DOWN with Cherry Picking

The following charts are based on data of the central Greenland ice core from the NOAA.  Charts have been made like this with the data, such as those on  wattsupwiththat.com and Richard A Muller’s site, and the following ones are from the Watt’s site however I am currently making up my own charts as I don’t want the source to interfere (and no, I don’t know nor do I care if either of those two sites are paid by NASA or the gov’t or an oil company or an environmental agency or Satan himself – it is the data that is important, focus people, focus).  The data can be confirmed with NOAA.

This next chart is occasionally used and it shows the “hockey stick”, which is the slang used to describe the sudden upswing of temperatures towards 2000:

Hockey Stick 1400

It becomes clear why the date 1880 was picked as the start date, as there was an embarrassingly steep rise around 1830 which hits a convenient plateau at 1880, and the NASA charts after that are what we were given.  So now the exact same question is even more interesting, “what caused the sudden rise in temperatures from 1830 to 1880?

Apparently this increase is due to human carbon emissions.  Yet, carbon emissions were really only beginning back in 1880.  The population of the entire world was about 1.5 billion and there were around 600 cars on the road.  You know, 1880, with the corsets and horses and buggies and absence of plumbing – that 1880.  Now, there are approximately 6.8 billion people and 900 million cars on the road.  The increase in industrial emissions is similar.

For something that was only really beginning, that is a very sharp increase.  One would expect it would instead gradually increase as carbon emissions and industrialisation increased.

Here are a couple more graphs, zooming out even further:

Temperature History from 800AD

I really need to say nothing about that data.  It speaks for itself.  However, experience has shown me that what is obvious to me isn’t necessarily obvious to others.  Neither the speed of warming, nor the height of the current temperature is unprecedented.  In fact, on this next chart you will see there is nothing very warm about it at all; it seems on the cooler end of the global history.

Temperature History from 3000BC

Here’s an image worth examining:

Carbon dioxide has been blamed entirely for the recent increase in temperatures.  Not just CO2, but specifically human emissions of CO2 in the form of fossil fuel use.  Aside from the fact that those playing this tune must think we are complete idiots and will cling to anything to bring large corporations to justice, there is absolutely no evidence for this.  None.  Correlation is not evidence of cause.  It is all based on this equation:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas + CO2 is increasing + global temp is increasing = CO2 caused the increased temp

Be careful of such logical fallacies, they can be tricky.  What appears to make sense does not stand up to scrutiny.  In this case it is Confusing Cause and Effect.  The anthropogenic (man-made)  global warming formula is much the same as this one:

smoking causes cancer + ten people have cancer + all ten people smoke = smoking caused the cancer in all ten people

Or more simply:

CO2 has increased

Temperature has increased

Therefore, CO2 caused the temperature increase.

To highlight the problem more vividly, how does this sound:

Ten people have cancer

All ten eat carrots

Therefore, the cancer was caused by carrots.

The fact that smoking has been shown to cause cancer makes the first conclusion I made sound reasonable and likely and the majority may leave it at that, overlooking something important.  What if all ten people were working together in an area polluted with radiation?  Stubbornly sticking to what appears to be the “logical” cause based on what limited information we have, destroys all hope of finding the real cause.

Hence, to question such a fallacy in the current political climate (no pun intended) is not only sound, it is essential.

Here is an interesting page on the NOAA Paleoclimatology that shows another possible cause of the problems we face on Earth today.  If warming is natural, cyclic or in some other way not a major threat (even if it is natural that doesn’t automatically mean it isn’t a threat, by the way) then we may make things worse if we treat the global issue as though there was one cause and one solution.

For instance, our agricultural practices have done the most damage to our planet.  They cause droughts and drying lands and dysbiosis through monoculture (large areas of single species plants) and messing with the natural landscape.  Bio fuels will only further this problem by destroying miles and miles of indigenous land and people to plant monocrops (corn and the other proposed ethanol fuel sources).  But… “as long as it’s not carbon” right?

Back From the Brink – How Australia’s Landscape Can be Saved is a book I recommend by an Aussie bloke who rescues one of the harshest landscapes on the planet, turning it from uninhabitable desert wasteland into a lush paradise.  While doing so he decreases termites and returns the soil from its dry, acid conditions.  This alone is enough to question the given reasons for our landscape changes.  Since when does warm = dry?  Some of the greenest, lushest places on Earth are the hottest – Northern Australia, the Amazon… surely we aren’t going to fall for the idea that any one thing, temp, CO2, etc, is causing the landscape shifts we have experienced?  Next they’ll find a way to convince us that warming is what caused the streams to become polluted.

There are many ways we went wrong and turned the paradise of Earth with her pristine food sources and crystalline water veins into a garbage dump with sewerage veins.

People ask me how, as a greenie, I keep trying to draw attention to this issue, isn’t it better to cut down on carbon emissions?  Well, of course we need to do that.  But that is not what is being planned, and it certainly shouldn’t be done at the expense of the planet and her people, that would defeat the purpose.  If we knee jerk react to this, we will make more mistakes and the cost will be great.

This page focused on one area: the idea that the current temperature is unprecedented and a threat of cataclysm.

Click here to go to the carbon dioxide aspect of the formula.  An important aspect because, well, for one thing, CO2 rises after the temperature rises.  I have found only one AGW advocate that addresses this (ineffectively), or any of the other issues with CO2.

Click here for discussion on why blaming large corporations is not the answer, for we are ALL to blame and need to change our OWN ways.  We need to stop focusing on how companies operate because not only has history shown this does not create change, but if we simply stop paying them (ie, for the energy they sell) they will shrivel like a picked flower.  You have the ultimate power, as the consumer.  Take responsibility.

Click here for the Sagacious Opinion on the proposed “solutions”, such as biofuel and hydroelectricity and the impact this will have on the planet and people.

And failing ALL of that, should you still be shaking your head and refuse to contemplate alternatives, consider the mere fact is they expect you to accept that carbon dioxide has caused the complex issues our planet faces today.  It’s laughable.  Even looking at the greenhouse effect, CO2 is about 2% contributer to it, humanity is about a 10% or less contributer to that 2%, making a total of some tiny percentage of contribution.

Possible?  Of course.  Probable?  Hmm, not convincing enough.  Definite?  Not even close.

One thought on “Unprecedented Temperatures My Ass – here’s the NOAA data

  1. Hey, looks like I’m the first to post! What an honour. (OK, don’t groan).

    A logical, well-researched, scientific appraisal Neen. Thank you. You have presented me with further information which helps my understanding. There are two sides to every debate and on the subject of AGW opposition arguments have not been as evident in the popular press and the media.

    I too feel we must stop trashing the planet and look for alternative ways to both generate energy and be more economical in its use. We must stop the rush to deplete earth’s natural resources and then have to substitute made-made ones. I was dismayed that one of my more sensible friends suggested lakes of oil-producing algae to replace fossil fuels when they run out. That would only mean further ruination of our landscapes. It would be another attempt to maintain a dysfunctional society with its dependence on the motor car and over-consumption. It is fairly evident that many people and their governments do not want to contemplate any real change, not having been shown better, more sustainable and viable alternatives.

    I love your blogs. They may make my brain hurt at times but I am very grateful for your insights.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s