With the impending death of the warmist movement, I thought we should start taking stock of where we need to start aiming to try and undo the damage which has bee done.
The EPA and other environut agencies have found that CO2 is a harmful gas and needs regulated. They came to these conclusions primarily ….. well, primarily because they are totalitarian Marxist hell bent on enslaving the masses and doing away with economic liberty. But, they used the insane paranoid drivel from a group of carbonphobes and more totalitarian Marxists, the IPCC. There have been prognostications of dire events of biblical proportions. Ice was to melt, near instantly(on a geologic time scale), floods would ensue, the hydrological cycle was to be so disrupted that we’d have severe droughts as well! Storms on epic scales were necessarily going to occur if we didn’t regulate our CO2 emissions!
All of this was suppose to have occurred because people had the audacity to use cheap energy to do things like cool themselves on hot days, energize factory equipment to produce things, and drive vehicles which could facilitate our needs. Some even drive, (gasp) S.U.V.s!!! These actions were supposedly bad because of the release of Carbon Dioxide, (CO2) into the atmosphere. CO2 supposedly warms the planet via absorption of very specific IR frequencies and then releasing some of said energy back toward the earth. But, I think it may be worthwhile to look back and see if some of these dire prognostications are beginning to come true. After all, we’ve got some decent(some not so decent) records to make some judgments based on some observations.
Now, sure enough, it does appear that our atmospheric CO2 is increasing…… and at an exponential rate! It has increased by about 30% over 50 years. Of course, this, by itself is nothing to be concerned with.
But, it was the increase in temperatures some were worried about. Now, I’d like to present a graph which is a composite of unaltered temperature readings. Sadly, I cannot. None of our agencies or science institutions compile an unadjusted graphic representation of such a temperature record. Heck, they don’t even order them in a sensible way so someone else can. Worse, every single entity that does touch the temp records feel compelled to alter them. They’re not satisfied when just one alters them and then hands them out for the rest to play with, like the GHCN who do the most excellent thing of having different versions of versions. For instance, one can have a GHCN version 3, but it could be different than another GHCN version 3! Now, it is pure fantasy that we can actually have a global average temp anomaly and actually have it mean anything, but while we’re playing around, I’ll demonstrate, according to some of these “adjusted” data sets, how temps respond to increased CO2.
I’ll zero them both at 1970. As you can see, it looks like the CO2 increases and temp increases only correlated for a few years, about 30. Towards the end of the 70s to the end of the 90s, when alarm about our CO2 emissions gained a lot of traction. But, for our last 15 years, the CO2 emissions don’t correlated with our temps.
Now, I’m very well aware that some of our alarmist friends will scream that the last 15 years is too short of a time period to measure anything by. Some would say I “cherry picked” the time frame. Others yet, would say that I “cherry picked” the data set. I hope they don’t while I’m drinking something. I’m using the 3rd version of a temp record which ever “version” increases then warming trend from the one before. The 4th one is out but not up to date, yet. The original file set is gone now. But, I’m really not interested in the temperatures. What I’m establishing, is that in their interpretations of our thermometers, there has been some warming. Some would say significant warming. So, let’s check the increases of CO2 and temps against all of the evils which are suppose to have befallen us. (Go here to have some fun with the WoodForTrees graphs. It’s a fun interactive application. Hit the donate button if you like trees or just want to say thanks to the gentleman who let’s everyone play there.)
Let’s start with tornadoes. They are a particularly wicked type of storm thingy. And, they should be good at testing the gloom and doom theory. Tornadoes are spawned by thunderstorms. Thunderstorms develop in warm, moist air in advance of eastward-moving cold fronts. These thunderstorms often produce large hail, strong winds, and tornadoes. So, more warm more tornadoes, right? Last year was a very busy tornado season. For EF3s-EF5s, it doesn’t even rate in the top 5 years. All of them happening prior to 1975.
But, is the U.S. indicative of the world? In a word, yes. The U.S. experiences more tornadoes than any other country in the world, and by a large margin. Here’s what the NCDC has to say about this….. “In terms of absolute tornado counts, the United States leads the list, with an average of over 1,000 tornadoes recorded each year. A distant second is Canada, with around 100 per year. ….. the United Kingdom has more tornadoes, relative to its land area, than any other country. Fortunately, most UK tornadoes are relatively weak.” Does anyone see a correlation between tornadoes and temps or CO2? Me either. Sometimes, hurricanes spawn tornadoes. And, hurricanes are the most devastating type of storm I can think of. So, let’s look at hurricanes.
For hurricanes, we can show total ACE values for the globe and North Hemisphere. For those who are unfamiliar, Accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) is a measure used by NOAA to express the activity of individual tropical cyclones and entire tropical cyclone seasons.
From Dr. Maue Figure: Last 4-decades of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE. 1970-2011 monthly ACE Data File (Maue, 2010 GRL) [–] 1970-2011 global tropical cyclone frequency monthly Data File Does any one see a correlation between hurricanes and temps or CO2 levels? Me neither.
But, now we’ve often heard about droughts and floods. Right? Maybe those are getting worse. Now, it’s a bit difficult to find historic drought data in a time series or something that represents above or below average, but what we do have shows that the idea that droughts are getting worse is nonsense.
The last 36 months for Australia. Of course, that’s only one side of the story. What about floods?
Floods in the past, have been difficult to determine if they were increasing in severity or frequency or not. While global representation is still difficult to attain, again, we see the things we can measure show to be contrary to what the alarmists have stated.
Time series trends of the last period (after 1970)
The blue triangles depict decreasing trends (23/98 stations)
The green circles depict small changes within (-s, s) (64/98 stations)
The red triangles depict increasing trends (11 /98 stations)
Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.
Ladies and Gentlemen. There isn’t one alarmist talking point which has been verified. In over 30 years of pure hysteria and manipulation of data, waste of huge amounts of money, studies, grants, and neat junkets to places like Rio, none of this nonsense has been observed. If the temps did respond to CO2, they sure aren’t now. But, even if one wishes to claim that they have, how is this getting manifested? What are the dire consequences were we so certain to be facing by now?
I think it’s time we went to go get some of our money back.
Update! I had thought I had already included a couple of more pieces, but, apparently that’s where I left it. A Rolling Stones song comes to mind. Sigh…..
We were also told that all the ice would be close to melted by now. Yes, this has been very dramatic, and traumatic for a bunch of lunatics. Source; Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source
This is all of the melt people talk about…………. constantly. Do you see any relation of this to the reported temps or CO2? Me neither.
All of that heat was suppose to melt all of the land ice and cause sea levels to rise to a point not seen since Noah! Well, I wish I could give you an accurate sea level graphic. But, as I’ve documented in a few places, the jackwagons won’t quit messing with them long enough for me to post a graph to say this is what they say! Here’s the last Envisat sea level graph, and then one I used just four days prior! All selections were the same. Same data set.
More subtle shenanigans are being employed on our Jason II sea level satellite. Documented here. As to the tidal gauges, they are in the middle of just coloring them higher. As I documented here.Given the movement on our dynamic historical sea level measurements, any pronouncement of sea level increase should be met with laughter. For science fun, ask them what data set they’re using, and what version of what version they are using for reproducibility. (This question is valid for both satellite measurements and tidal gauge measurements). Then wait a couple of months. Then run the numbers currently being used. They will not be the same. When using the same data set and calculations, the results will be different. Point this out. If the person is an academic, and you know he was aware of the dynamic nature of our data, then accuse him of academic fraud and start the procedures to remove his credentials or him censored. 🙂