Bush Solves Global Warming: No Change in Atmospheric Temps Since 2000!

Self ^ | 2-12-2007 | Robert A. Cook

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Look at the troposphere data from NASA's graph's of temperature over time, and see if you can confirm what I read from the numbers:

The "0.0" reference point used for global warming claims is the early-mid 70's. Current temperatures are higher by about .8 degree C, but have been oscilating steadily without increasing or decreasing since that single peak of 1998-1999.

Since 2000, there has been NO detectable global warming. None. Zero. A lot of hype, but nearly 1/10 century has gone by and temperatures have not changed.

IF global warming (more specifically, man-caused global warming) does exist, or if the rate of temperature increase is actually proportional to the global CO2 levels, then temperatures now MUST be higher than they were in 1998. But they aren't. Bush has stopped global warming.

But (ten years after 1997's hype, 9 years after the peak in 1998 - and NO Kyoto protocols in effect, and NO reduction in CO2 emissions in the US, Europe, China, India, or the Soviet Union there is NO CHANGE.

Then, why should we expect global temperatures to change AFTER implementing Kyoto restrictions on the US economy?

WHY are the temperatures now (early 2007) at the same levels as they were at the beginning of that peak in 1998, and WHY have they NOT increased since they flattened out in 2000 - with NO Kyoto protocols enforced?

Thus, we have five years of absolutely "no change" in global atmospheric temperatures, and nine years of a a DECLINING global temperature!

(1) The democrat/liberals/international socialists have clearly been using the net rise (about 1 degree F) since the mid-70's as their foundation: Their entire case is based on extrapolating (or INCREASING) the rate of temperature over many decades past today's temperatures as a scare tactic. They take the 1 degree rise, then (in 1995), claim the rise took place in 15 years and extrpolate into a 15 or 20 rise in the next century. Now, 35 years since the baseline, global temperaures have ACTUALLY risen about .8 degree. 2.4 degrees in a century.

Not so bad is it. 2 degree rise in one hundred years. Certainly NOT what the media wants you to hear from the democrats.

But actually, for six full years (2000-2006) the REAL temperatures have been scattered, but have NOT changed. Yes, for seven years of unregulated (non-Kyoto!) energy emissions and (despite) tremendous increases in exhaust gases from China, India, Brazil, Korea, Eastern Europe, and Indonesia (and yes, the US and Canada have also increased emissions) ...... There has been NO increase in atmospheric temperatures monitored by NASA.

Now, we should agree one month of average temperatures is "weather". Two months of below average eather is alos "weather" - it is not a trend, and can't prove or disprove any global theory. Six months of averaged temperatures are "weather" and are subject to random changes. One year of averaged temperatures? You can argue: certainly one year can begin a trend, but it is also random.

But when the entire "curve" depends on reliable temperatures from only 1975-2007... AND the last nine years of that 32 "history of mankind's influence on weather" show a "no change" then you CAN identify a trend.

After all, 1/4 of the entire curve shows "no change" - other than exactly tracking the sun's solar influence (through cosmic ray cloud cover factors) that is.

Clearly, if the low point of the mid-70's is chosen as a basis - when a coming Ice Age was being predicted based on low temperatures- then current temperatures seem much higher, and more importantly to a mind-numbed public, APPEAR to be catastrophically higher than if a 5-year (or three-year) "running average" is used as a comparison of temperatures.

(2) If, as it appears, we are PAST the peak (or more likely) PASSING OVER the peak of the slow sine wave of global atmospheric temperatures, how likely is it (in the next 400 years) that the next Ice Age - now slightly overdue -will begin later than expected?

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

For comment. review. Correction.

[JHBowden]

This is really funny. Bush never gets the credit for the things he does right. After all, we all know Cheney and Big Oil sit in an evil lair, frantically pushing buttons and pulling levers to the destroy the innocent, sensitive planet.

There are none I loathe more than anti-capitalist, anti-technology, anti-modernist neo-hippies.

Well, except for Revolutionary Islamists.

[rface]

I ahd to learn what the troposphere was:

Troposphere From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Troposphere is the lowest portion of Earth's atmosphere. It is the densest layer of the atmosphere and contains approximately 75% of the mass of the atmosphere and almost all the water vapor and aerosol.

I guess everything looks self explanitory......

Bush, did indeed stop global warming. I am sure the MSM will be splashing this across the front pages tomorrow. < / sarcasm >

Actually it is our job to present this info to others in an effective way,

Thanks for showing me

[RandyRep]

I note that Bill Clinton and Al Gore left office in January 2001 and the amount of hot air emanating from DC was drastically reduced as a result. Then everywhere that Al Gore went to make a speech about Global Warming was in them iddle of a record cold snap. GWB has news conferences a couple times a year, and Dick Cheney hardly ever says anything.

President Bush did it simply by replacing the biggest windbags on earth.

[I got the rope]

So what are you saying:

I shouldn't trade my carbon?

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

LOL.

[cookcounty]

Love it. Put it in a book. Name it "How Bush Cured Global Warming" (...Just to get some poppin' eyeballs in the Borders').

[Nasty McPhilthy]

Don't make me have to come over there!

[Calpernia]

Al Gore is deeply saddened.

[onyx]

Good enough!!!

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

For info to your list.

[Porterville]

No such thing as Global Warming... we need to scream it much louder and threaten to prosecute those who say it is real. We should hold them responsible like Nazi war criminals. Let's start with Al Gore. Let us put him in jail to wait trial for spreading lies and anti-Earth fallacies. And charge him for being a fat dork attention whore.

[Clintonfatigued]

This is facinating.

I thought Bush was only responsible for bad things.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Has the Global Warming crowd been able to explain the ending of the last four major ice ages yet? Neanderthal Man wasn't driving around in a Hummer.

[wodinoneeye]

BLASPHEMY !!!!

ANYONE WHO EVEN LISTENS TO THESE LIES IS GUILTY AND MUST BE BURNED AT THE STAKE !!!!

THE CHURCH OF GLOBAL WARMING WILL SUFFER NO HERETICS TO LIVE!!

[oneamericanvoice]

Aaah the work of the evil right wing geniuses at NASA no doubt, which makes them fully discounted! What an inconvenient truth this is!

[wodinoneeye]

ITS ALL BUSH'S FAULT !!!!

THE LEFTARDS WILL NOW HAVE TO FIND A NEW DELUSION TO GIVE THEIR LIVES PURPOSE.

[Brad from Tennessee]

NOAA is currently revamping its methodology on temperature reporting because so many different local factors have affected temperature readings at individual stations. For instance a weather facility that may once have been located out of town may today be surrounded by urban sprawl which can produce an urban heat island effect. It may once have had a gravel parking lot which is now asphalt. Agricultural land use with irrigation may have changed. There are many weather stations in the U.S. where the average temperature has not changed or actually dropped by one or two degrees in 80 years. Here's a link to this subject:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V3/N13/EDIT.jsp

[expatpat]

It looks to me as if the lower stratosphere is cooling but the troposphere (the air we breathe) is heating up, which is consistent with the standard story.

[Thunder90]

GW PING!!!

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Well that's what they want you to believe ...

True, for several years, the troposphere was heating up (a little), and the stratosphere cooling off (in exact opposite direction from the trop. changes in temp - a fact never explained, but clearly visible.

But, for the last 9 years the trop. temperatures have NOT changed. They've just fluctuated without increasing or decreasing.....

[patton]

Thanks, Robert - I am going to cite it as a reference for a paper I am writing.

Loved the headline today, where the Czech PM cast doubts on Gore's sanity.

That had the whole lab laughing.

[ClaireSolt]

I figure that is why they are in such a hurry to implement untested solutions. I have seen this info before.

[patton]

Follow the money...

Carbon credit exchanges will create billions of dollars out of thin air.

Who stands to profit?

[aught-6]

I've been waiting for statistical evidence of "global warming", but the longer the time period examined, the less significant the evidence becomes. What's up with these new-age so-called "Scientists"? Following a new religion?

[ClaireSolt]

The same people that brought you the dot.com bubble and Enron crash. iow the Clintonistas, of course. Completely artificial and fraudulent.

[ancient_geezer]

Look close and one can note GISS surface measurements across after 2002 appear to be leveling off as well:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

 

 

 

Which is readily explained by noting that cloud cover reversed is trend and started increasing around 2000 decreasing the amount of sun heating the surface.

 

 

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on graphic for full GW rundown

~Science Lesson ~

[Edit35]

Did you read the Czech President's (Vacavh Klaus?) interview where he implied that AlGore was insane??!!

He is absolutely brilliant in his analysis of the media and political forces behind the global warming scam.

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

It shows remarkable candor and intensity - a feature not found in today's repubbie party.

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Thank you. Certainly, such a conclusion isn't "true science" - since I'm not revealing "new" or original information from original sources.....

But it IS an observation no one else has ever made.

[seemoAR]

The same people were behind the Freon 12 and ozone hole theory.

[xcamel]

Notice the 11 year sunspot correlation?

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

A New Zealand researcher sent me yesterday the actual data for the troposphere temperature. What I'd like to do is work out the two-year running average on that and see how the curve looks asymptotically.

Even the charts for the (now discredited!) surface temperatures from 1850-2007 show this flattening of surface temperatures since 2000!

If I recall, sunspot activity "leads" the cosmic wave intensity, which then leads the atmosphere temperatures, with the stratospheric temps inverting the troposphere temps. So, if that pattern holds, the long-term sunspot activity should be going lower now, right?

[xcamel]

Charts or no charts, the Milankivich predictions are right on the money.

[xcamel]

Correction: "Milankovich"

[NeoCaveman]

Well that settles that.

Thanks

[NicknamedBob]

Here is an excellent analysis of why so-called global warming is nothing to be concerned about.

If all the ice melts

Currently Earth has 148 million square kilometers of arable land, 16 million of them covered by glaciers.

If all the ice melted, (which would take many thousands of years), we would shrink to only 128 million square kilometers of dry land. But we would recover that area formerly lost to ice, (a net loss of only four million square kilometers).

In addition, the warmer, wetter climate, supposedly rich in CO₂, would be a boon to agricultural production.

And just think of the mineral wealth to be extracted from the now ice-free Antarctic Islands.

It should also be factored in that the milder climate would lead to recovery of much of Earth's current desert climates.

It's true that many coastal cities will become Atlantean memories, but the gradual encroachment of the sea will give all but the most boneheaded politicians ample time to evacuate.

The illustrations above do not depict any changes in vegetation. In reality, local climates would be very different in ways that are currently difficult to predict. It might be that the warmer climate would lead to generally greater precipitation (this is suggested by comparison to the last ice age, when cooler temperatures caused expansion of the Sahara). Unfortunately, current models are not reliable enough to give a confident answer.

So why wouldn't people drown? Again, a change in the Earth this dramatic would take thousands of years to effect from any realistic cause. Over generations people would migrate as the coasts changed. Consider that virtually all of the settlements in the United States were established only in last 350 years. Of course, many settlements inhabited for thousands of years would have to be abandoned to the ocean--just as many would have to be abandoned if ice age conditions returned and covered vast areas with ice sheets. But people can comfortably adjust where they live over periods of decades, far shorter than the thousands of years needed for these climate changes to naturally take place. Also, that's if they occur, and we have no evidence to indicate what would happen to climate over the next few thousand years.

Okay, my boyhood home will be rendered uninhabitable, even with a dehumidifier and a sump pump. But I know about a lovely valley in the mountains of central Pennsylvania. I'll be okay up there.

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

A factor not often remembered in evaluating the simplistic "X volume of ice melting = Y volume of "new" water = Z value of sea level rise ...."

First: Sea level is relative: removing ice from the top of land reduces the weight on that land, and the absolute land elevation (measured from the center of gravity of the earth!) goes UP. Thus Greenland and Antarctica, for example, will be much higher than now, just as many areas in North America and Europe are STILL rebounding from the last Ice Age melting.

Second: Ocean floor elevations (absolute distances from the CG of earth) go DOWN because more water weight is pressing DOWN the ocean floor. More downward pressure, more movement down = more available volume to put the melted water. (Note that both effects lag the temperature problem: The water has to melt first, then the water pressure increases, then the sea floor goes down. Equally, ice melts first, then land pressure goes down, then land levels go up.)

But the net effect is a movement of some 30 meters UP across the entire Ice Age in the sea floor. More important than ice melt volume is the (assumed) change in (average) seawater temperature: rising temperatures would expand the water already in the ocean, and this increase raises apparent sea level.

Net effect? Latest estimate is now about .8 meter in 50 years. (Or one good sized wave.)

Assuming, of course, that there is ANY increase in temperature at all.

[NicknamedBob]

So nobody will mind if I borrow ten million cubic kilometers of ice?

Oh, goody! *Rubs hands together briskly*

[ancient_geezer]

So, if that pattern holds, the long-term sunspot activity should be going lower now, right?

 

NASA - Long Range Solar Forecast

 

The real key to the puzzle is what is happening to the solar coronal magnetic field that determines the magnitude of in cosmic ray flux and its connections with cloud volume & climate that appear to be an even more potent source of climate variation than variations of the sun's brightness per-se:

 

http://wdcc1.stp.rl.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html

A Doubling of the Sun's Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years

M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild

World Data Centre C-1 for STP, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, England, UK

NATURE Vol. 399, 3 June 1999. Pages 437-439

Cover:

The total solar magnetic flux emanating through the coronal source sphere⁸, F_s , derived from the geomagnetic aa data for 1868-1996 (black line bounding grey shading) and the values from the interplanetary observations for 1964-1996 (blue line). The variation of the annual means of the sunspot number <R> is shown by the area shaded purple. The magnetic flux in the solar corona has risen by 40% since 1964 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.

[NicknamedBob]

I wonder if it's possible to compare other stars to the sun's coronal magnetic field.

Could the sun be stepping up to a new fuel for its fusion burn? That would likely make it hotter, but would that cause it to expand?

[gondramB]

Anybody who can read a graph can see the trend has been upward since 1976. It is not in any way helpful for conservatives to claim that that average global surface temperature is not rising. What we need to do is head off the people who want to cripple the economy by assuming that this rise is all due to carbon dioxide. We need to point out that the change since 1900 is just one degree so there is time to study the causes before doing anything rash.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

p.s. We might also want to point out that global warming did, in fact stop between 1945 and 1976 while CO2 levels increased steadily since 1850 so something else has to be a big factor.

[xp38]

The new crisis will be temperature stasis.

[ancient_geezer]

You might want to take a look at a bit more resolution, annual averages on a century of datapoints just don't hack it, especially when looking at associated data that shows more clearly what has been happening in the climate.

 

Here's some NASA GISS & ISCCP charts looking at the last two decades which have been claimed by GW proponents to be predominately due to rising CO2 as opposed to natural factors cluttering up the picture:

 

ttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E_lrg.gif

Blue semicircles mark La Ninas, red rectangles mark El Ninos, and green triangles mark large volcanic eruptions.

The marked volcanic eruptions are Surstey 1963, El ChiChon 1982, and Pinatubo 1992.

 

Noting as well, the fact that changing cloud cover allowing greater sun light on the surface has been the dominant factor in surface heating over the last two decades.

 

Global Cloud cover

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

 

Especially low level clouds which dominate surface temperature by acting as a negative feedback:

 

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2CLOUDTYPES/B32glbp.anomdevs.jpg

 

Curiosly, even water vapor is decreasing as global temperatures rise:

 

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/browseatmos.html

 

 

In direct contradiction of primary requiremen of Anthropogenic Global Warming models:

 

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/model/direct/direct_lecture_new.html

Water-vapor/greenhouse feedback.

Relative humidity is reasonably constant despite variations in absolute humidity. That is, an increase in temperature leads to more evaporation and increase in the absolute amount of water vapor in the air (increase absolute humidity). But since the warmer air has a higher saturation vapor pressure (can hold more water vapor), the relative humidity stays approximately constant. The increased absolute humidity, however, increases absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere and hence increases the greenhouse effect. Note that this increased greenhouse effect raises the surface temperature, which further increases evaporation. This feedback mechanism is not self-regulating, so we call it a positive feedback.

Cloudiness / surface-temperature feedback.

As temperature increases, evaporation and absolute humidity both increase leading to more cloudiness. But the increase in clouds leads to increased reflection of solar energy and also leads to more trapping of infrared energy from the surface of the earth. The net effect (which depends on the altitude of the clouds) is thought to lead to a cooling, which makes this a negative feedback process.

as quantified by Ramanathan:

"the direct radiative effects of doubled CO2 can cause a maximum surface warming [at the equator] of about 0.2 K, and hence roughly 90% of the 2.0-2.5 K surface warming obtained by the GCM is caused by atmospheric feedback processes described above.
--- "Increased Atmospheric CO2: Zonal and Seasonal Estimates of the Effect on the Radiation Energy Balance and Surface Temperature"
(V. Ramanathan and M. S. Lian), J. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 84, p. 4949, 1979.

[highlander_UW]

Then, why should we expect global temperatures to change AFTER implementing Kyoto restrictions on the US economy?

The Kyoto agreement never would have affected "global warming" even if everyone that was supposed to signed onto it. It is just a world wealth redistribution scam where poorer nations sell their pollution credits to wealthier nations. Very little real change in pollution, just money changing hands to maintain the status quo.

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Darn. The first graph shows that sunspots are NOW at their minimum, building up to the next peak in 2011-2012. At least that peak will match the 2012 eclipse of the sun by Venus. Perhaps Venus' shadow will reduce the influx? 8<)

Ya know, I could really enjoy going through life NOT knowing that the sun is starting to go nova on us .....

I'd reaaaaaaaaally rather that it go nova in ... maybe 4 billion more years.

[ancient_geezer]

LOL, just get in the shade under a tree, no problem. Be sure to wear SPF 40 or better sun screen ;O)

[NicknamedBob]

"I'd reaaaaaaaaally rather that it go nova in ... maybe 4 billion more years."

Oh, Man! You really had me worried there!

I thought you said four million years!

[RightWhale]

Our Accuweather weatherman today said that if we knew what assumptions they had to make to tweak the climate models or even daily predictor weather models to keep them from blowing up we would be highly skeptical of all of it. Alaska the Canary is experiencing climate change five times faster than the world. Today it is 8 below zero in Fairbanks (official reading on my porch), and even in Anchorage it is ten below normal at +18, so I expect your climate is two below normal right now.

[gondramB]

There is year to year variability, reasonably high compared to the total change but thousands of scientists from dozens of countries have looked at the data and agree the trend is up. Average global surface temperature is rising.

Now, curve fitting is something of an art - I've seen projections from people I trust between 2 and 4.5 degrees increase over the next century but the trend is up.

If you magnify the very top at the very end of a graph you can make it look like a long term trend is not valid. For example, here is the Dow for the last couple of years.



Can we agree that the Dow Jones average has basically been going up since November of '05 with one correction just after May of '06 ?

Now look at the most recent data magnified



You could take that last graph and say the rally is over and maybe even that the market is going down but that would not be a good way to represent the situation.