arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
July 24th Global Sea Ice Area Highest Since 1996 – 8th Highest On Record
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
As a non-scientist, I have difficulty understanding the competing claims in the “scientific community”. I did some science in college, but just as a technician, and as a student. My first rule is that I pretty much discount those who call the competing view and it’s adherents names. Those are not serious people. The second rule is not trusting the term “settled science”. Its the kind of term that would be used by church elders in the 15th Century, not by a modern scientist. Thirdly, I take a second and a third look at the claims of “scientists” who are in bed with politicians, like the president or Al Gore. Lastly, science doesn’t include moral judgements with its findings. So producing carbons with your industrial process might harm something, but that’s not a moral failing, its just a fact, and no scientist would give it a moral value.
After looking at the above graph, take a look at the following one
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
The latest little spike corresponds to a normal relatively weak positive ENSO that is probably reverting now
http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/sur/images/nino34_short.gif
as it happened in 2012, when the world temps also had a little spike.
Note that the spikes of local high temps are decreasing in magnitude similarly to the decrease of ENSO positive anomalies,
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-Nino3-4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
The world temperatures and ENSO follow similar patterns, because the latter is only a “symptom”, a reflex of the former.
Both world temps and ENSO clearly show a trend to lower anomalies- i.e. a cooling trend for world’s temperatures- and, if the climate alarmists were really interested in the scientific understanding of the climate they should have no problem in admitting that, but they don’t.
Their claims are, at the very least, scientifically biased and in conflict with the observed data.
Climastrologists are not tasked with understanding the climate. That was never ever the goal. That is why all other variables besides CO2 and man produced greenhouse gases are pretty much ignored.
The USA ratified on 21/03/94 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This means the USA in 1994 ACKNOWLEDGED CAGW as a problem at a high level and then went to work trying to convince the citizens that “They” wanted Congress to “DO SOMETHING” (That is how Global Governance and “Harmonization” work.)
Here’s the official definition of “Climate Change”:
“Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, end even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.
So voters have been hoodwinked thoroughly. Of course that’s the idea. They can make all sorts of horrendous claims about “climate change” (assuming their definition), which people like us assume to apply to, not “climate change”, but to a change of climate (meaning any change, whatever the cause or mechanism). So if they say, “climate change” is 1000 times more than it was 100 years ago, that may be true, but it might still be that the change of climate is negligible.
Do you see now how the hoax is perpetrated?
The IPCC mandate is similar:
So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.
The IPCC’s ROLE