100 years of warming means nothing.

Any scientist that even attempts to come to conclusions on global warming with 100 or even 1000 years of data is a fool.  To insist that the temperature trends of BEST mean anything or that any trends that we see have meaning is assuming so much when what we really lack is real information….the warming over the last 100 years for instance is nothing but a second in a day of the climate, and to claim that you know everything there is to know about the climate based on 100 or even 1000 years is to be the expert fool.   I think the problem here is an educational issue where scientists so fell in love with ideals and computers that they forgot the first step in the scientific process where we actually have to prove what they state.  In this case, we are left with science in shambles, and a bunch of expert fools running around telling us how we must live our lives.

As this chart shows here, the more long-term trends show us the current trends as being less scary.  If you notice the long-term graph above, the rise in temperatures that has occurred recently is not very scary at all and look rather normal when you look at the big picture.  Should we allow people who show us clipped versions or “selected versions of reality” really tell us how to live our lives?  I think this picture here tells us all we need to know in that regard.  Nothing scary is occurring and even if CO2 has an impact, it is more than likely minor and the warming we have seen in the last 100 years is natural and nothing to be concerned about.

Now whose fault is it that we are indeed today squandering wealth and our society on pointless money pits such as wind turbines?  I could state that it is yours, or perhaps “the evil scientists” or even individuals, but we as I make a theme here, I like to remind everyone here that we must all bear some responsibility.  We allowed these ideals to wash over our population.  These ideals of the greens who make up roughly 5% of the population are being forced at this very time on the majority whether or not we want them to.  We could at any time tell the activists from WWF or Greenpeace to get lost and to stop telling us what companies should succeed without any good explanation.  We could tell them we do not want to throw money at solar or wind companies and at the super rich who turn around and make billions at the taxpayer expense in the form of loans that will never be repaid or in the form of subsidies which end up costing the middle class, the poor, and the old people the most when they have to really choose whether to use heat or not due to sky-rocketing energy costs all caused by that aforementioned green minority who fell in love with wind power and as such over-look nuclear power which is also carbon free in its operation.

I mention nuclear once again to show a huge disconnect with reality.  Wind power does not work when the wind does not blow.  Even T Boone Perkins who is making millions at the expense of taxpayers over wind power tells us that “only a fool tells us wind works when it is not windy”.  In this case, wind is inferior to every other power source minus possibly solar and other renewables.   But nuclear does work, and it works well.  But the problem comes not from sound science, but from feelings and abstract ideas on what society should be.  This is a dangerous combination when taken together because we are left without results when results is what our society should be based upon.

Why should we switch to power sources that only work under certain conditions when we already have power sources that work whenever we need them to?  That is my question of the day.  Why not use nuclear power which has zero carbon emissions instead?  I ask all of these questions with full seriousness and of course the inevitable conclusion I reach is that the reason we are throwing our money down the toilet is because once again a vocal minority has grabbed the reins and just like other minorities in the past once to make the money and the living for only the minority.  So screw the majority, they can sacrifice and they can want.  Us enlightened greens will benefit at the expense of everyone else and will not sacrifice at all.  We, the green, after all are the ones “saving the world.”

So there you go.  That is the entire point of billions of dollars spent every year on research, and on tens of billions of dollars spent every year on wind power (planned right now to increase to hundreds of billions of dollars in the future) all for expert fools who sit in their computer lab with zero real life experience and have the gall to tell us to “think about our grandchildren: Sacrifice for the greens or you are condemning those grandchildren to the warped fantasy that we cooked up with our computer games.”

Just like lemmings, I think lots of people fall for that fluff.  Maybe our species is doomed not due to CO2 or AGW or global warming, but doomed due to a chronic stupidity which allows vocal minorities like greens to take over enough power to tell us how we will live.  And we sit back and appease them thinking this will buy us peace and quiet.  But what did appeasement do in history?  We have taken this road before in history and it has always resulted in the worst parts of our people.  We have seen countless minorities seize power for their own ends and rule through tyranny and through death when the tyranny is not enough to cowl the population.  The end result is always the same when you allow minorities to dictate to the majority.  We saw this in Soviet Russia.  We saw this in Cambodia.  We saw this in Germany in the 1930’s.  Need I go on with the countless times we have gone down this road to the benefit of a minority group who wants everyone else to suffer and to give up for the few?

Until we make people 100% accountable for every action they have achieved and until we hold these people accountable, they will continue to hold us hostage to this huge story of how the “Earth is currently in a warming spell” and how it “must be the fault of man because we do not understand the natural processes that could cause this warming.”  That is obviously a logical fallacy to simply assume it is man simply because you do not understand the processes that could cause the natural change.  As I mentioned earlier, taking 100 years is too short of a time to come to a definite conclusion on anything climate-wise.  Let’s look at some other trends and how we have changed climate wise on different time scales:

10 year record:  We have cooled by ~0.05C

30 year record: We have warmed by ~0.4C

60 year record: We have warmed by ~0.5C

The instrument record (~130 years) – (complete): We have warmed by ~0.8C

1000 year record: (Using proxies) – Appox the same, but probably warmer then today – (Warning disagreement in abundance here)

Holocene (12k year graph – shows the Climate optimum) – We have cooled by ~2 degrees C since ~5000 years ago.

But to put that into perspective, one only needs to look at different time-scales.  The climate is always changing on this planet.  If you take a different time-scale, you can either say we are cooling or we are warming depending on from when you start.  If you start at the end of the Little Ice Age, you notice that we have warmed by less than a degree in over 100 years.  This is not something to be so concerned about that we should abandon modern society and on-demand power which has advanced our society to our current point.  Or to put it more simply, taking a linear trend as I have shown is nothing but a futile effort to put a linear trend onto a cycle of the climate that is not linear but rather cyclic.  In the end, any linear trend you come up with is going to be hampered by the fact that the climate is dynamic and ever changing.  So should we squander society and spend trillions on the end for the thought that “since we do not understand what is happening, it must be the fault of man”?  That is up to each of us in the end.  All I can do is provide all the information available and allow others to make that call.  We learn more everyday and we must all admit we are wrong or were wrong at times.  This is nothing to be ashamed of, as the past is a learning experience where we can reach for a better future with wisdom.

More information on trends:

(courtesy of CommonSenseMajority – H/T): that adds some additional information to what I mentioned earlier.

There is the past, the present, and the future:

(1) There *has* been warming since the end of the little ice age (maunder minimum ~1645-1715, dalton minimum ~1790-1830)



(N.B. solar forcing is not just TSI; there
is also sunspot activity and downstream cosmic rays, and there may be
additional forcings still to be discovered)

(2) We are *currently* in a period where there has been a ‘flatlining’ of
temperatures for more than a decade (Muller accepts since 1998). HadCRU shows
minor cooling since 2002 (accepted by Phil Jones in a BBC interview, still stands
at -0.08 degC per decade from 2002-current).

– This flatlining is important because it contradicts the hockey schtick
(highly sensitive positive feedback to CO2), and is coupled with cooling
periods ~1880-1910 and ~1940-1970 to demonstrate evidence of the ’60 year
oscillation’ (thought to be related to thermohaline circulation).

– It is also important in demonstrating that the IPCC needs to go back to the
drawing board and gain a better understanding of solar, cloud, aerosol, and
thermohaline circulation forcings.



(3) It is *forecast* that we may enter a period of sustained significant
cooling beyond the peak of tame SC24, based on NASA/NSO observations of ‘quiet’
solar activity.



 Why do we pretend to understand climate-

Hope that helps.


I should add that the *past* does not just include the period from the LIA:

(i) last ~4.7 billion years (Earth’s history):

(ii) last ~400,000 years
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm  (note: temp precedes CO2, not the other way around)

(iii) last ~1,500 years (inc. MWP & LIA)
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html  http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php


This video is a good entry point for beginners:



One response to “100 years of warming means nothing.

  1. The comparison I use over at DT is, trying to draw inferences bearing on the geological timescale from the 150-odd years of instrumental weather records, is like trying to deduce the plot of the Harry Potter series of novels, by examining the full stop at the end of the final sentence on the last page of the last book. It’s tosh, as those who deal for a living with events over geological timescales know full well.

    Longer term, the greatest influence over the earth’s climate is the Milankovitch cycles, particularly the 100,000 year cycle of the variation of the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit around the sun; you can read my article on this here. In the shorter term (e.g., a human lifetime), variations in sunspot activity and solar flux (which interact with the earth’s magnetic field and directly affect cloud formation) are more readily observable influences on our climate. As physicist Richard Lindzen has often said, any anthropogenic signal is so small by comparison that it is lost in the “noise” and is likely to be undetectable, even by future instrumentation.

    Ben: Very well said. I can not say I disagree with any of those thoughts, and you did put it into a better perspective. This post is a work in progress that I posted purposely just to get my main ideas out and to otherwise figure out how I need to re-write it later.

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