Total Pageviews

Friday, August 11, 2017

Total confusion on absolute mean global temperature !

Global warming cult members are mainly liberals.

They insist we must believe government scientists.

And never mind that the "scientists" on government payrolls are hired only if they believe CO2 controls the climate (government groupthink). 

Never mind that the "scientists" have been predicting runaway global warming for the past 30 years ... while the average temperature barely changed.

These climate modeler "scientists" often have advanced science degrees, but they are not very smart.

What they are is greedy people with science degrees who take a lot of money from the taxpayers, play computer games, make scary wrong climate predictions, and generally provide nothing of value for their salaries.

They falsely claim the climate of our planet can be summarized by a single number -- the mean (average) global temperature of our planet -- even though no one actually lives in the average temperature!

They say CO2 controls the climate and more CO2 in the air causes the average temperature to rise ... but there was a lot more CO2 in the air from 1940 to 1975, while the average temperature declined ... and a lot more CO2 in the air from 2000 to 2015 while the average temperature barely changed !

There are CO2 laboratory experiments to suggest CO2 is a greenhouse gas that should cause warming ... but actual warming based on the experiments would be less than +0.5 degrees C. in a lifetime -- harmless and much too small to notice.

Of course +0.5 degrees C. in 100 years is not enough to scare people, so the "scientists" invented a new 'theory' out of thin air ... an illogical, unproven, never happened before, “enhanced water vapor feedback”, that allegedly triples the global warming caused by CO2 alone!

Meanwhile those "brilliant" climate modelers can not even agree on what the absolute mean global temperature of our planet is.

Can you believe that?

For decades it had been assumed that the 20th century global mean temperature was 15° C.   

Here are some examples of what scientists have claimed, from their own papers, or what was reported about them in mainstream German and US newspapers: 
Svante Arrhenius, 15.0° Centigrade
Stephen H. Schneider, 15.0° C.
Christian Schönwiese, 15.0° C.
James Hansen, 15.0° C.
Der Spiegel, 15° C.
James Hansen, quoted in New York Times, 15° C.
James Hansen, quoted in Der Spiegel, 15. 4° C.
James Hansen, quoted in Der Spiegel, and many other media sources,  reporting that the global temperature had reached a “record” 15.4° C.
Der Spiegel reported a northern hemisphere mean temperature of 15.7° C., and this was the last time they printed the absolute global mean temperature.
 On January 18, Der Spiegel online suddenly switched to a new 14° C baseline, and then announced a new record of 14.8° C (note that in 1995 they had reported 15.4° C. as a new record)!

On April 1, Der Spiegel stopped showing a temperature chart when reporting on the “new 2016 record” of 14.8° C.

The German Der Spiegel newspaper inadvertently exposed widespread confusion about the absolute global mean temperature.

It seems to have been rolled back by 1°C. without any explanation.

Depending on the government source, it is either 14.8° C. (WMO), or 15.8° C. (NASA). 

One whole degree difference from two government agencies ... that reported 2016 was warmer than 2015 by a few hundredths of a degree C. ! 

This absolute global temperature confusion is exactly what I would expect from junk science, and that is exactly what mainstream climate science is.

Meanwhile, the global warming cult is talking about investing roughly $13 trillion ($13,000,000,000,000) to "control global warming", to meet the commitments of the Paris Climate Accord. 

That is approximately 12% of annual global GDP.

And that is a crazy scheme unless you are getting some of the money!

Climate change is mainly about money and political power, not science.

CO2 does not control the climate, and never has.

Our planet's green plants want more CO2 plant food in the air, not less.

Our climate is wonderful and getting better, not bad and getting worse!

If CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes global warming, then the warming will be at night, because CO2 has no effect on daytime sunlight.

And the warming will be in colder, dryer areas, not in the humid tropics where water vapor in the air will always dominate the greenhouse effect.

If the current rate of CO2 increase (2 ppm per year) continues in the future, and the CO2 lab experiments do apply to real life, then the average temperature would increase by a harmless +1 degree C. in the next 200 years (while CO2 doubles from 400 ppm to 800 ppm).

These are all well known facts about greenhouse gasses ... but you may not know them because your government doesn't want you educated about climate science -- just believe their coming climate catastrophe fairy tale, memorize their climate change talking points, and do everything they tell you to do without question!

The climate of our planet has never been better for humans and their pets, and has been getting better for hundreds of years.

Adding more CO2 to the air will make the climate even better for the "C3" plants that humans and farm animals eat.

CO2 is not an evil gas -- it is the staff of life.

CO2 levels are not too high -- they are much too low for optimum growth of the green plants on our planet -- that's why greenhouse owners spend their money for CO2 enrichment in their greenhouses, to about 1,000 ppm, to accelerate plant growth!

The claim that humans can predict the future climate is a hoax, especially obvious after 30 years of grossly inaccurate average temperature predictions.

The claim that adding CO2 to the air will cause runaway warming is a hoax -- because CO2 levels were higher than today (up to 20x higher) for almost the entire 4.5 billion year history of our planet ... with no runaway warming, or any other negative effects!

The fact that a lot of people are making money from the CO2 hoax makes it a scam ... a taxpayer subsidized scam.

This blog exists because I favor maximum personal freedom and economic freedom -- I am against taxpayer-subsidies for a 'green' industry, created mainly by a climate change hoax.

I do my small part to refute the climate change hoax with this blog -- by presenting a summary of what I've been reading about climate science ... articles and studies that I would be reading whether I had this blog or not.

I have been reading about climate science since 1997, but only wrote two feature articles on the subject for my economics newsletter in the next 17 years (in 2007, and in 2014).

It is my opinion that the attack on fossil fuels is something to worry about because it can only hurt economic growth -- but the predicted global warming catastrophe was always a wild guess, repeated thirty years in a row so far, but was always nothing to worry about.

After my late 2014 article, I decided to start a climate blog for updates.

Sometime during the first half of 2015 I noticed the coming climate catastrophe claims were getting wilder, in spite of the fact that the average temperature had barely changed in the past dozen years!

I decided to participate more in the online debate, by posting a few comments at a few climate websites, sometimes providing the URL for this blog -- thereby opening the blog to people who did not subscribe to my economics newsletter.

There have been over 11,000 blog page views in the past two years -- I suppose that means there are other people like me, who want to learn about climate science, rather than speculating about the climate 100 years in the future!

The climate hoax is supported by government scientists who are paid to predict a climate catastrophe ... they are no better than the scientists who had been paid by tobacco companies to claim cigarettes were safe.  

My Background:
I was a liberal during the Vietnam War era. 

I protested the war, burned my draft card in front of my Selective Service Office in 1971, and filed as a conscientious objector.

I told my draft board in writing that I would go to prison before I picked up a gun, went to Vietnam, and shot people. 

But I also would reconsider my position if our nation was invaded and needed my help. 

Those were the good old days when liberals 

In 1975 I was in college at the Rochester Institute of Technology, studying engineering, when I discovered the book "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt, for 10 cents, in a Salvation Army store.

By the way: After business school I donated 1% of my white collar salary to the Salvation Army for almost 30 years, and recommend that charity to others.

That economics book was a lot more interesting than an engineering class on differential equations, so I read it, and soon became a (small government) libertarian. 

After two years of engineering studies, I switched my major to business, but got a BS degree anyway for taking so many science and math courses. 

There was a serious recession when I graduated, so I got an MBA in the next 18 months at NYU's Stern School of Business ... and ended up in product development at a large corporation in Michigan 40 years ago. 

My wife retired at age 51, and seemed so happy that four years later in 2004, I also retired at age 51, not sure if I had saved enough money to do that. 

I'm approaching age 64 now, and still don't know if I'd saved enough money ... but I enjoy my hobbies a lot more than wearing a suit, driving an hour a day and working for a paycheck. 

This blog is one of my hobbles.

I didn't trust my government while it was losing the Vietnam War, so it was logical for me to favor a smaller, less powerful government back then, and become a libertarian. 

The remaining liberals reversed 180 degrees -- I really don't know when it happened, but they started loving the government.

If you love the government, and government scientists tell you CO2 controls the climate and will cause runaway global warming, then I suppose you will believe them.

If I have learned one thing in life, 
and maybe I've only learned one thing, 
its to NOT BELIEVE predictions of the future, no matter who makes them.

Climate modelers in 1998 predicted +1 degree warming by 2015.
--- There was no warming.

Obama predicted in 2008 that he would stop the rising of the seas.
--- Sea level rise continued at the same rate as in the past 100 years.

Trump predicted in 2016 that he would give us 4% GDP growth as President.
--- With productivity increasing at a +0.5% rate, and the labor force growing even slower, we would be lucky if future growth reached the +2.1% average GDP growth rate we've had under Obama, since the last recession ended in mid-2009 ... but then who could win an election after predicting +2% growth?

People seem to love predictions, 
except me, 
so I suppose predictions will never stop!

Please don't lose your common sense, 
and believe predictions of the climate in 100 years,
made by the same people, 
who in the past 30 years, 
proved they can't predict the climate,
 just 10 years into the future!