Who decided we had global warming?
If the arbitrary 0 for anomalies (the difference between assumed normal or an average of a selected x run of years and the actual) was desired to favor cooling, all that needed to happen was to select the assumed mean at 1 degree higher, or select the run of years that show a mean 1 degree warmer and then we have 0.4 degrees cooling +/- 0.3 deg or whatever amount you wish. This is hypothesis support by data manipulation. The only way to get a true average is to have an identical situation with which to compare. We haven't had the technology for enough millions of years and proxies such as cores (assumed temperature at an assumed time by assuming certain chemicals and animal and plant remains at a selected depth represent temperature to an assumed level of accuracy) conflict each other due to the different latitude, location as ice, (glacier, mountain cap, ice sheet, cool to warm latitudes) sediment, (deep ocean, continental shelf, cool to warm latitudes) and ground, (vertical height, type of rock, cool to warm latitudes) without looking at other proxies such as fossils. And the planet changes constantly, for example a melting ice cap is believed to ease mantle pressure and the resulting rebound causes contraction at the equator, like releasing a squeezed ball. Taking core and proxy data over hundreds of millions of years, the dominant mean is assumed at ~18 degrees C. We are around 15. So who decides the optimum temperature and who decides how to achieve it? A dictatorship of badly informed eco-extremists. Personally I'm inclined towards 18 degrees C if the present 15 is ever proved accurate, and reduced ice caps, put some space between us and the next ice age and increase cultivatable land.
Ice caps are a recent phenomenon due to landmass moving to the poles. They are believed to have triggered ice ages under the influence of the rapid Tibetan plateau uplift that also brought about and influences Asian monsoons.
The continents have moved in latitude and longitude whether by planet growth, plate tectonics or a combination.
The orbit around the Sun is elliptical and changes not least due to the gravity influence of the other planets.
The axis is unstable in that it tilts to varying degrees giving us seasons and it wobbles, that is the circle described by the tilt moves in a circle of varying size .
The Moon that controls the tilt, wobble and tides and that causes the planet to bulge is moving away about 3.8 centimeters per year. Going back in time it was increasingly closer. If the rate is constant then it has moved away 23 miles in the last million years. If the orbit round the Sun has always taken a fairly constant time.
Mountains rise and fall by the range and individually, usually slowly by erosion but volcanoes can reduce overnight. Their topographies affect air currents. Humans reduce them for resources.
Ocean level rises and falls due to additional water from the interior and comets, expansion and contraction, basin size increase, tectonic uplift and subsidence, magma emission.
Biomass increases and decreases for a variety of reasons and evolves affecting albedo, water vapor, co2 and methane levels that are assumed to affect atmosphere.
Inland seas come and go for a variety of reasons.
The interior is assumed to produce heat plumes that give rise to massive eruption events and slow, ongoing outflow as in Hawaii and Iceland, open rifts and regular volcanoes.
There are other significant volcano types not directly sourced from mantle magma such as Yellowstone.
Solar moods have a profound effect through radiation, magnetism and gravity all of which vary and since its birth the Sun only gets hotter until it goes nova or meets a different end.
The occasional asteroid of substantial size has an effect on topography and on atmosphere that is profound and enduring, craters form lakes and ridges, the air clarity is changed e.g. aerosols.
Local events affect areas far away such as US weather dramatically affected by African deforestation.
The planet's rotation speed has been slowing, for how long we don't know, perhaps for the 4.5 ba the planet may have been in existence.
The difference between what we know and what we need to know is much greater than that between dowsing and radar telemetry. Yet we accept as fact assumption based on poorly supported data deduced from ice cores by assumption added to low quality instrument measurement with an error margin that appears to be in whole degrees rather than fractions. We accept as fact that the Earth is warming due to projections based on computer models that use low quality programming software, several variables from the thousands that affect temperature, that assume knowledge of oceans and their effects is greater than the few percent of it we actually do know, that assume past conditions are known to a sufficient extent to provide comparative and predictive values, that the knowledge of the future is more certain than that it may get warmer, it may get cooler. It will, change is guaranteed. It will rain tomorrow, and if I say that each day, then one day I will be right. Global warming will resume in 10 years, in 50 years, after the turn of the century, for how long? Who knows, science doesn't. Sunspot activity will resume January (wrong) March (wrong) May?? Science has yet to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the globe as a whole has in fact warmed. Satellite data has a correlation to the UHI effect, for example. We have only learned for certain of significants such as urban areas get warmer as the grow. That ENSO and PDO events profoundly affect climate. That deforestation has many climate effects we are just discovering. That co2 is insignificant to additional temperature as a direct actor. That volcanoes have varying influence depending on type and that only huge, major events have enduring climate effects. That we are emerging from one or several periods of extended glaciation and a few other factors. This is what we have paid over 50 billion for. Plus punitive tax and civilization crippling changes if we continue the madness. I hope the unpredicted depth of the present unpredicted declining temperature is humbling those that have succumbed to belief based on what amounts to no more than rumor.
This is not a criticism of the science or its data, merely the superlatively corrupt and corrupting presentation and exaggeration of assumption based on unknowable variables and insufficient and often wrong, usually inaccurate data, and policy based on it. The UK government using the excuse extracted an economy damaging 29 billion last year. We have the EU threat of harmful man-made agrofuel legislation for a product that does more harm than naturally occurring fossil fuel. We have the threat of huge investment in nuclear power. We have the threat of crippling power bills and unaffordable vehicle fuel. We have the threat of weather events against which we have little to no protection. Increasing starvation and deprivation in the third world. Extreme staple foods' price increase. Recession and inflation. Punitive legislation. The threat of inter-european trade wars. Decorative carbon credits driving business, investment and capital abroad. All due to the IPCC and the world governance lusting EU.
Government has no business being involved in unachievable climate control that were the fantasy to succeed would likely be calamitous. Real government business is the anticipation and defense against extreme weather events. We have precious little of that as evidenced by the recent flood events and threatened inundation of S.E.England. The government isn't doing its job and the "jobs for the boys" EU has proved too expensive, counterproductive and wrong in too many ways to justify support or continued membership - unless paid to participate.
When running with the pack is detrimental, it is time to turn. A ~15% cut in bureaucracy by closing green departments would give elbow room for tax reduction. Withdrawal from the EU and other useless organizations like the red cross (~93% goes to administration) would add to that. It is time the UK became more selfish and looked after its own a lot better than successive government seems capable of. The economy has declined coincident to the increase in IPCC and EU influence. Government for the people by our own, not foreigners with strange objectives, not as a political adventure, not fantasy world rescue, and by the way, charity begins at home. Precious little has been forthcoming from this party.
An alarmism oriented British study recently found a part of solar activity does not correlate to temperature variation. That is what is known as a "straw man" in that it is used to deny solar significance. Solar activity has been used to predict ENSO events. ENSO events precede climate temperature change by around 9 months and correlate quite closely. Many studies find correlation between temperature and solar activity, some don't. The variation is caused by the solar activity or activities and term selected, the selection by kind and original processing method of the proxy data, the reprocessing of the selected data and the personal input of assumptions of the studier and selected other. To say the solar significance is this or that in relation to additional warming without declaring an error margin of perhaps 15%, likely more is to lie by omission, and that cuts both ways.
Many alarmism oriented reports and their parrots announced a floating ice shelf (yet another) was about to break off due to air temperature. It is now re-iced to the main body. Loss of the protective ice pack permitting weakening by storms in earlier years plus warmer water is thought to have been the source of the bond weakening. It may have been a cyclic event. Floating ice is irrelevant to ocean level.
Even more news from Wilky, the shelf of the moment.
and from the AGWdidit earth observatory:
"likely as the result of warming sea temperatures."
Truth found here:
And this winter is coming on quickly. Satellite images show the ice has already refrozen around the broken pieces and expanded. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear.
True to form, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein could not allow himself to include any scientists or peer-reviewed studies countering alarm over the allegedly “melting” Antarctic.
I've looked at relevant public data and I'm undecided whether this statement was a gross exaggeration, an inept interpretation of the evidence or borderline fraud, because I can see nothing about the collapse to indicate that it was anything but a natural event.
Firstly, there were no other reports of recent collapses in this part of the Antarctic during what the end of the (southern) summer melt period. If climate was the major cause then surely we would have seen other instances of ice shelf disintegration, shelves such as the nearby King George IV shelf or the several shelves along the Bellinghausen Sea just 500km to the west.
Secondly and more importantly, there is nothing in the observational data to suggest a dramatic recent change in climatic conditions.
From Sept last year, highly probable comes to mind. Bushvision and prediction.
My prediction for next winter's news rags "What global warming?"