Revised and shorter version of a long June 2014 report, updated September 18, 2015:
The primary strategy of the coming climate change catastrophe cult is to consistently and confidently predict climate change doom in the future … and for the past 40+ years we have been forced to listen to their worthless, and wrong, scaremongering.
They completely ignore 99.999% of Earth's climate history (prior to 1850).
That's 4.5 billion years of climate change being ignored!
The climate cult has been predicting doom for over 40 years, starting in the 1970s, mainly from global warming, but some scientists in the mid-1970s predicted a global cooling catastrophe.
And they have been wrong for over 40 years.
In those 40+ years Earth's climate has become slightly warmer, which means better than ever before in our lifetimes.
In the early 1800s Earth was unusually cool, and had been cool for hundreds of years.
A warming trend was due.
Based on ice core studies in recent decades, mild warming for hundreds of years would typically follow.
That warming trend started about 1850, and is called the Modern Warming.
Warming may continue for hundreds of years, or it may have ended ten years ago when the warming trend stopped (temporarily, or permanently -- no one knows).
The average temperature is only up one or two degrees F. since 1880 -- not much warming so far, but I hope we'll get a few more degrees of warming in the future.
In the early 1800s, the CO2 level was low and green plants grew slower than they do now -- Earth's climate in 2015 is better than in the early 1800s, and has been getting better since about 1850.
Logical people would be celebrating the better climate.
The climate change cult, however, is not logical (from a scientific point of view), but they have been successful at getting a lot of attention, money, and power, which I suppose means they were being "logical" from a political point of view?
Logical people would be celebrating the better climate.
The climate change cult, however, is not logical (from a scientific point of view), but they have been successful at getting a lot of attention, money, and power, which I suppose means they were being "logical" from a political point of view?
An amazing quantity of climate data are ignored by anti-science climate change cult members simply because the data contradict their global warming beliefs:
.
(1)
They ignore 99.999% of climate history, including hundreds of cooling and warming cycles over the past one million years, as determined by Greenland and Antarctica ice core studies since the 1980s.
.
(2)
They ignore the fact that glaciers have been melting, and raising the sea level, for almost 15,000 years after the glaciation peak of the last Ice Age, and should continue to melt, and raise the sea level, until another "Ice Age" returns.
.
(1)
They ignore 99.999% of climate history, including hundreds of cooling and warming cycles over the past one million years, as determined by Greenland and Antarctica ice core studies since the 1980s.
.
(2)
They ignore the fact that glaciers have been melting, and raising the sea level, for almost 15,000 years after the glaciation peak of the last Ice Age, and should continue to melt, and raise the sea level, until another "Ice Age" returns.
There has been no acceleration of sea level rise in the past 150 years, so climate change has not dangerous to anyone.
.
(3)
They ignore the fact that no one started averaging local temperature measurements until about 1880, during a warming trend most likely still in progress.
.
(3)
They ignore the fact that no one started averaging local temperature measurements until about 1880, during a warming trend most likely still in progress.
That means the records cover only the warming half of a full warming/cooling cycle.
Trying to scare people, climate cult nuts act “shocked” whenever a new record high average temperature is reached.
But new average temperature highs are EXPECTED during a warming trend, just like new stock market average highs are EXPECTED during a bull market.
If there are new highs the uptrend is still in progress -- but it could end the next day.
.
(4)
They ignore the fact that 1800’s thermometers were far from global, and tend to read low when checked against accurate modern thermometers.
.
(5)
They ignore an early 1900’s change in sea temperature measurement methodology, from wood buckets to canvas buckets, that happened during a period that included a lot of the “global warming” prior to 1940.
.
The sea temperature measurement methodology was later changed again.
.
(4)
They ignore the fact that 1800’s thermometers were far from global, and tend to read low when checked against accurate modern thermometers.
.
(5)
They ignore an early 1900’s change in sea temperature measurement methodology, from wood buckets to canvas buckets, that happened during a period that included a lot of the “global warming” prior to 1940.
.
The sea temperature measurement methodology was later changed again.
.
Sea temperature measurement remains haphazard, however, and oceans are over 70% of Earth's surface.
.
(6)
They ignore the abandonment of most USSR weather stations in the late 1980’s when the USSR collapsed -- eliminating most measurements from a large and relatively cold nation – so smarmy scientists 'wild guessed' whatever temperature numbers they felt like using for those areas … and their "infilled" data seems to have caused “instant global warming".
.
(6)
They ignore the abandonment of most USSR weather stations in the late 1980’s when the USSR collapsed -- eliminating most measurements from a large and relatively cold nation – so smarmy scientists 'wild guessed' whatever temperature numbers they felt like using for those areas … and their "infilled" data seems to have caused “instant global warming".
.
A pro-warming bias is typical of climate scientists -- they frequently "adjust", and "re-adjust", and "re-re-re-adjust", surface temperature measurements for no good reason, and their "adjustments" usually cause more "global warming".
.
For surface measurements, half the warming since 1880 may be due to raw data "adjustments".
.
(7)
They ignore 150 years of CO2 data (90,000 measurements from 1812 until 1961 by the Pettenkofer method) showing CO2 peaks in 1825, 1857 and 1942 -- demonstrating that for much of the 19th century, and from 1935 to 1950, atmospheric CO2 was higher than today, and varied considerably.
.
(8)
They ignore a large majority of raw CO2 data (over 75% of raw infrared measurements from Mauna Loa since 1959), using “editing” to leave under 25% of the raw data … which are carefully "selected" to create an unusually smooth CO2 "curve" on a chart -- a curve that just happens to support pre-existing beliefs about CO2.
.
(9)
They ignore the fact that a majority of land weather stations in the US, claimed to be the best land weather station network in the world, are improperly sited by US standards.
.
(7)
They ignore 150 years of CO2 data (90,000 measurements from 1812 until 1961 by the Pettenkofer method) showing CO2 peaks in 1825, 1857 and 1942 -- demonstrating that for much of the 19th century, and from 1935 to 1950, atmospheric CO2 was higher than today, and varied considerably.
.
(8)
They ignore a large majority of raw CO2 data (over 75% of raw infrared measurements from Mauna Loa since 1959), using “editing” to leave under 25% of the raw data … which are carefully "selected" to create an unusually smooth CO2 "curve" on a chart -- a curve that just happens to support pre-existing beliefs about CO2.
.
(9)
They ignore the fact that a majority of land weather stations in the US, claimed to be the best land weather station network in the world, are improperly sited by US standards.
Most stations are too close to buildings, roads, runways and parking lots that all absorb heat during the day, and create “global warming” at night when the bricks, concrete and asphalt release heat.
.
These stations reflect double the warming measured at the few properly sited weather stations surrounded only by grass and trees, where there is no economic growth affecting the temperature data.
.
(10)
They ignore all weather satellite global temperature measurements since 1979, even though satellites are the only global measurements, and are also the most accurate measurements.
Why ignore the best data?
Simply because the data show less warming than surface measurements since 1979, and no warming trend at all in the past 12 to 18 years.
.
(10)
They ignore all weather satellite global temperature measurements since 1979, even though satellites are the only global measurements, and are also the most accurate measurements.
Why ignore the best data?
Simply because the data show less warming than surface measurements since 1979, and no warming trend at all in the past 12 to 18 years.
.
Surface measurements also had showed no warming trend for the past 12 to 18 years … which really annoyed climate modelers … so they got Obama's government bureaucrats to arbitrarily "adjust" the ocean temperature in April 2015, for no good reason.
Warmer, of course -- and one day later the 12 to 18 year "pause" had disappeared from the surface temperature data!
.
All scientists agree satellite measurements in the troposphere should reflect at least double the warming on Earth’s surface, assuming the greenhouse gas theory is the cause of the warming, but actual data show less warming, not more.
.
(11)
They ignore a positive correlation between solar energy variations and average temperatures on Earth (and on other planets in our solar system) based on sunspot counts for 400 years (a proxy for solar energy), and satellite measurements in recent decades.
.
Unusually cold periods in past centuries have been accompanied by, and most likely caused by, unusually low solar activity.
.
(12)
.
(11)
They ignore a positive correlation between solar energy variations and average temperatures on Earth (and on other planets in our solar system) based on sunspot counts for 400 years (a proxy for solar energy), and satellite measurements in recent decades.
.
Unusually cold periods in past centuries have been accompanied by, and most likely caused by, unusually low solar activity.
.
(12)
They ignore the fact that a “signature” of greenhouse gas warming is the average temperature rising with altitude, with the hottest temperature roughly six miles up in the troposphere.
But this "hot spot" has never been found.
.
Weather balloons and weather satellites consistently measure no temperature increase with rising altitude above Earth’s surface.
That's strong evidence greenhouse gases are not the primary cause of the minor increase of the average temperature since the mid-1800’s.
But this "hot spot" has never been found.
.
Weather balloons and weather satellites consistently measure no temperature increase with rising altitude above Earth’s surface.
That's strong evidence greenhouse gases are not the primary cause of the minor increase of the average temperature since the mid-1800’s.
.
(13)
They ignore the fact that “average temperature” is not a real measurement of something that exists.
.
Average temperature is a complex statistical average of ever-changing local temperatures.
.
The Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so the temperature is constantly changing everywhere over time.
.
There is no single global temperature.
.
Statistical averages are not real measurements.
They ignore the fact that “average temperature” is not a real measurement of something that exists.
.
Average temperature is a complex statistical average of ever-changing local temperatures.
.
The Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so the temperature is constantly changing everywhere over time.
.
There is no single global temperature.
.
Statistical averages are not real measurements.
.
After many "adjustments", there are actually no temperature data left in the averages -- "adjusted" data are merely estimates of what some scientists think the raw data should have been.
.
There is no proof any average of local temperatures, measured with weather stations whose count, locations and instruments have changed radically over time, is a meaningful and useful statistic.
.
Whether you “measure” warming or cooling at surface weather stations over time, depends mainly on:
- The years you start and end the measurements,
- The accuracy of the measurements,
.
There is no proof any average of local temperatures, measured with weather stations whose count, locations and instruments have changed radically over time, is a meaningful and useful statistic.
.
Whether you “measure” warming or cooling at surface weather stations over time, depends mainly on:
- The years you start and end the measurements,
- The accuracy of the measurements,
- The time of day measurements are made,
- The total number of weather stations in the average,
- The spacing of weather stations from each other,
- The changing environment around weather stations, and
- The statistics chosen to combine the data into one number
.
The total number of surface measurements included in the average temperature has changed a lot over time, peaking in the 1960’s.
.
After the USSR collapsed in the late 1980's, the number of weather stations fell by about half in just four years.
.
Oceans are over 70% of the Earth’s surface, yet ocean temperatures were first measured haphazardly by sailors on merchant ships throwing buckets over the side, and sticking thermometers in those buckets full of seawater.
.
First wood buckets were used, then canvas buckets, and later the temperature of incoming engine cooling water was measured – three different measurement methodologies were used in one century!
.
Almost all the world’s oceans are unmeasured, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, where 80% of the surface area is ocean, but there is far less shipping there than in the Northern Hemisphere.
.
Ocean temperature measurement locations are at random, but only in established shipping lanes, which are mainly in the Northern Hemisphere.
.
The distribution of surface thermometers over land and ocean is uneven, and there are large areas of the Earth with few or no measurements.
.
Land-based weather stations have changes in equipment over time, and may have been moved to different locations multiple times too.
.
The environment around a land weather station often changes over time – more cement, bricks and asphalt in the vicinity of a weather station is the typical result of economic growth -- and those changes affect the temperature.
- The total number of weather stations in the average,
- The spacing of weather stations from each other,
- The changing environment around weather stations, and
- The statistics chosen to combine the data into one number
.
The total number of surface measurements included in the average temperature has changed a lot over time, peaking in the 1960’s.
.
After the USSR collapsed in the late 1980's, the number of weather stations fell by about half in just four years.
.
Oceans are over 70% of the Earth’s surface, yet ocean temperatures were first measured haphazardly by sailors on merchant ships throwing buckets over the side, and sticking thermometers in those buckets full of seawater.
.
First wood buckets were used, then canvas buckets, and later the temperature of incoming engine cooling water was measured – three different measurement methodologies were used in one century!
.
Almost all the world’s oceans are unmeasured, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, where 80% of the surface area is ocean, but there is far less shipping there than in the Northern Hemisphere.
.
Ocean temperature measurement locations are at random, but only in established shipping lanes, which are mainly in the Northern Hemisphere.
.
The distribution of surface thermometers over land and ocean is uneven, and there are large areas of the Earth with few or no measurements.
.
Land-based weather stations have changes in equipment over time, and may have been moved to different locations multiple times too.
.
The environment around a land weather station often changes over time – more cement, bricks and asphalt in the vicinity of a weather station is the typical result of economic growth -- and those changes affect the temperature.
.
(14)
They ignore the fact that no human has ever been successful as a predictor of the climate years in the future -- local weather predictions for just a few days in the future are not precise.