Email This Post
Climb-not Change
September 13th, 2009Damn oceans.
If you had not noticed, this joint called Earth is a soggy place. Water covers about 71% of the surface and plunges nearly seven miles down, a depth slightly deeper and colder than Al Gore’s soul. If you stood every existing human side by side they would not cover a fraction of Lake Maracaibo, which is still a quarter of Al Gores growing girth.
Which may well explain why the planet is cooling and my green friends are in dithers.
Not that local San Francisco greenies need much motivation to fret, which is seemingly their very purpose in life. Aside from smoking vast quantities of medical marijuana, what has them most perplexed is that during the current decade our planet has cooled off a might. This contradicts United Nations climatologists and other enfeebled persons, and thus conflicts my green leaning associates.
Have a tofu burger. You’ll feel better.
Their confusion is understandable. After all, with China now the top producer of raw atmospheric pollution, with America not reducing its carbon footprint, and with India playing industrial catch-up, Al Gore’s canard clearly states that we should be roasting in our own juices. For the planet to cool while mankind is releasing more carbon than ever in our industrial history defies the theory.
Which means the theory might just be hokum.
But recent global cooling begs a couple of questions, namely why in Hell is it getting colder and who is going to pay my heating bill? Some scientists think the answer to the first question is that oceans are to blame. Maybe I can hit Gore up for the latter. After all he could produce enough hot air to thaw Rahm Emanuel’s heart.
Much of the problem with global warming theory is the inappropriate grafting of recent thermometer readings onto long term, proxy derived temperature estimates, and projecting just the new data into the future. Such bad methodology should be embarrassing to alleged scientists, but in pursuit of government grants even scientists can be dastardly. Most government generated schemes for dealing with the now inverted “global climate crisis” involve taxing somebody and giving the money to somebody else (i.e., theft). With trillions of dollars riding on such legislation, tossing a few quid to unethical or incapable academics is a good way to create public demand for the plan.
Which would work if it wasn’t for those damn oceans.
Some bright folk at Kiel University decided to see if all that water had any recurring effects (click the chart for a bigger one). After all, Mother Nature is a cyclic bitch. Most everything in nature moves in circles, cycles and recycling programs. Nothing nature does is linear with the possible exception of entropy, and I have my doubts about that. Mojib Latif decided to overlay oceanographic temperature data with United Nations scientific effluvium and see how agreeable the two were, discovering that they weren’t. Using a little sign wave logic, they show that the planet appears to be in the early phase of a nominal cooling cycle. Yes, my friend in Alaska – it will get much colder up there in the next 30 years.
Buy an extra parka.
This all makes intuitive sense, which is why United Nations scientists don’t get it. The industrial revolution began at about the same time the Little Ice Age ended. Depending on who answers the question, the Little Ice Age lasted between 200 and 600 years, bringing global temperatures well below average. The long term rise in temperatures from the mid 1800’s appears to be a recovery from excessive global cooling, slowed by those ornery oceans having to go through their cyclic variations.
There are a couple of grand takeaways from this analysis. First and foremost is the understanding that humans are a puny lot and our total effect on the climate doesn’t add up to that of a large lake. Equally important to understand is that if the trend cited by the oceanographers is correct, the worst we will endure this century is a 1/2oC rise in temperature, which might produce enough sweat to moisten Hillary’s dusty labia.
Foremost is shows that United Nations computer projections are buncombe and yet another reason for civilized countries to defund that intellectual brothel.










You may have heard about this story already, but if the hacked emails are genuine it shows how shameless some climate scientists are about manipulating data, in this case to hide apparent decline in temperatures.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global-warming-Claims-leaked-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html
‘The CRU, which plays a leading role in compiling UN reports and tracks long-term changes in temperature, has repeatedly refused to provide detailed information about the data underlying the temperature records.’
‘Climate change sceptics claim that some of the leaked messages discuss ways of manipulating data that fails to comply with the establishment view that climate change is real and is being driven by man.’
more here –
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977910534
Yes, I have watched the hacked email story, including some a few rebuttals concerning the content, most of which fall along the same tired “taken out of context” gambits.
Assuming that the hacked emails are authentic — and thus far nobody has claimed otherwise — they show at very least attempts to stifle dissenting opinion. This jibes with testimony from a few former IPCC scientists who resigned in protest over naked attempts to squash their “minority report.”
The hacked emails do not bode well for Gore’s Goblins. The surest way to destroy a movement is to destroy the credibility of its leaders. These leaked email commit said destruction.