LONDONERS SKATED WHEN THAMES RIVER FROZE

FROM DESERTS AND GLACIERS TO GRASSLANDS AND FORESTS

The world has continued to get warmer since the Little Ice Age (about 1400-1700 AD), the period when they skated on the Thames River, and will likely continue to warm for another 200-300 years, in stops and starts, towards a max temp roughly matching the Medieval Warm Period when Icelandic Vikings raised cattle, sheep and goats in grasslands on Greenland’s south western coast.

Londoners Skating on the Thames River 1684                             Photos British Museum

U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who do no original research of their own, but instead periodically assess and summarise published scientific literature on climate change, have done their best to exaggerate the rate of warming by the way they produce their charts.

Lying with Charts

 from Abhinan’s Tech and Analytics.  Global Warming is a serious yet controversial enough topic without bringing in bad data. While the charts on the left show the last decade, 2001-2010 as the hottest, they use a broken Y-axis that begins at 13.4°C instead of starting at zero. The charts below left do not hide this fact, and you can see that the chart’s Y-axis starts at 13.4°C, but the most visually prominent piece in the graph is, well, the graphs! And it screams the message that global temperatures are going off the charts – it’s time to panic.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Dismissing the recent 18 years or so of relatively flat global temperatures, the IPCC have stated that: “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010″. In that period average temperatures rose by 0.55 C which means that man likely contributed approximately 0.27 C in the 59 years or at a rate of 0.55 C per century…. no big deal!

The Link below from Forbes magazine poses some awkward questions

entirely ignorant piece on climate change

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

World temperatures readings from 1945 through to 1976 did show a slight cooling but were mostly stable in this period. In 1971 an influential group of scientists wrote to the president of the Unite States warning that that there was

 

enough evidence to show that the beginning of an ice age was at hand and wanted funding to study on measures of how to deal with it but when temperatures began to rise slightly they were forced to abandon the theory and were to later to seek funding on how to combat global warming when temperatures began to rise slightly.

In 1972, two scientists – George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) – wrote a letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age:

Cooling or Warming  ……  (also data from a number of scientists during the 70S

Borneo Tree Loss
Click to enlarge

Over the last century the forest cover around the globe has been greatly compromised, leaving the green cover down to an all time low of about 30 per cent.  According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), an estimated 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest are lost each year. The Paris accord did not include any firm policy on DEFORESTATION.

 

Edward L Bernay on Propaganda:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of the country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of..It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind.

 

35 Comments

  1. Nicklaus says:

    What had caused the climate to warm after the Seventeenth century? It could not have been caused by man, maybe it was a natural phenomena, like what is currently happening to our planet?
    People in the United States are starting to question the scientists who say that man is responsible for the current warming. There were 59% of people who once believed the theory that it is Anthropogenic but that has declined to just under 45% in recent years.
    This could unravel and turn out to be the greatest hoax of all time.

    1. Martin says:

      There is no denying the earth is warming albeit marginally. The average world temperature from 2010 to 2016 had risen from 14.47 C to 14.53 C thanks to the last two years being among the hottest on record. The previous four years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 were slightly under the previous decade average.

    2. Dave says:

      I agree that climate change could be a natural phenomena most likely caused by solar activity. The scientists have a greenhouse theory but have no evidence to support it, except for the moderate warming we are experiencing now being turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been proven. The modelling only confirms that the world is warming but provides no evidence of its cause. Core samples suggest that previous warming and cooling periods were not accompanied by any increase or reduction in CO2.

  2. Mei says:

    The IPCC are preparing the graphs to emphasise not to exaggerate the rate of warming which I fully support. People have to realise that a fraction of degree is significant.

  3. J D says:

    Global is indeed a controversial issue with support starting to fall away. Not one of the 32 candidates who stood for Manningham Council mentioned global warming in their manifestos. Even the green candidate who stood in Mullum Mullum made no mention of it. Manningham Council have abandoned the “Green Hill” policy which was to include wind turbines and solar panels on top of apartment developments. It is our childrens’s children who will have to suffer the consequences of our inaction if we don’t do something about it now.

    1. Darwinite says:

      Our grand children will be scratching their heads trying to understand how we could get conned into believing that carbon dioxide, the gas which is vital to the survival of our ecosystem, is a pollutant. The proposition that man’s contribution of 3% to total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is what is causing the planet to heat up, is ridiculous.

  4. Kip says:

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/05/chart-shows-1936-had-the-most-hot-days-on-record-not-2015/#ixzz4VExSRk1z

    1936 was by far the year with the most days over 100 degrees F.

    Many of the hottest days recorded in Melbourne occurred during major heatwaves which precipitated large firestorms:

    47.2 °C (117.0 °F) – 6 February 1851 (Black Thursday)
    46.4 °C (115.5 °F) – 7 February 2009 (Black Saturday)
    45.6 °C (114.1 °F) – 13 January 1939 (Black Friday)

    Just thought I would mention it for the deniers.

  5. Con says:

    The IPCC with all its gravy train of scientific hangers on are not going to go quietly without a fight…there is too much money involved. They changed from “global warming” to “climate change”….a brilliant move because it fits in with any scenario.

  6. Batman says:

    John Holdren, the longest serving Science Advisor to US presidents, has been associated with the prediction of a number of dooms day scenarios such as nuclear holocaust, global cooling, global warming (all of which he’s trumpeted at various points in his career) — and was accused of wildly exaggerating them in order to scare the public into adopting his politicized “solutions.” In point of fact he helped prepare the charts and graphs of Al Gore’s inconvenient truth. He, together with his sidekick Paul Ehrlich, in 1971, wrote a book which included the likelihood of a new Ice Age caused by human activity. I can remember a program on ABC (Aust) radio back in the 70’s where Paul Ehrlich spoke so eloquently of a looming Ice Age. I can remember him saying “there is no need to worry about a nuclear winter (the effects of a nuclear war on the upper atmosphere) it is already in place” with what we are putting into the atmosphere such as air pollution, dust from farming, jet exhaust and desertification etc” He went on to say, to the effect, that one of the problems facing the population was the “suppression of information”, presumably about the US government not not informing the public of the impending catastrophe.

  7. Dave says:

    If the concentration of CO2/GHGs are directly linked to global temperatures on earth, how do we explain the long periods of stable temperatures, (including some cooling) from 1880 to 1930 or from 1940 to 1980……ANYONE?

  8. Goglio of Detroit says:

    I have not met anyone who says the climate is not changing.. Climate is what you expect–weather is what you get. ( Mark Twain)
    It is ridiculous that we would want to associate CO2, a clean trace gas that our plants and trees thrive on, with global warming. We should be concentrating on reducing the high levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, benzene and the dangerous particle matter pollution that we are spewing into our atmosphere. It seems that the more we learn about pollution, the more we realize how much of it we’ve been living with and its only in the last few years that we have imposed regulations.

    1. Bullamar Kanka says:

      There are 60 million water bottles thrown away each day and only 10 percent of those bottles end up being recycled. That means that 90 percent of those 60 million bottles end up in landfills and the ocean taking more than 1,000 years to breakdown and decompose. One of the largest problems with global warming is plastic bottles. With than many plastic bottles just ending up in a dump instead of being recycled and used in other products we are polluting our land and water supplies with this kind of waste.
      Plant some trees, do something about improving the technology of converting plastic back oil and reduce the world’s population. Stop all this rubbish about reducing carbon dioxide the trees will do that naturally. IPCC is just a mob of unelected junketeers.

  9. Florida Mansion says:

    Overpopulation needs to be addressed if we are to limit global warming yet it was not on the agenda at the Paris Conference junket.
    According to the United Nation’s Agricultural Organisation, we are losing 7.3 million hectares of forest each year, roughly the size of Panama, to make land available for crops to feed and house our increasing population.
    A world without trees would mean the end of life as we know it because they produce most of the oxygen that humans and wild life breathe. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, the global warming culprit, from the atmosphere and release oxygen by using the process of photosynthesis.

  10. No Name says:

    “God has cared for the trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand tempests and floods. But he cannot save them from fools”..John Muir

    1. Black Beard Wyoming says:

      According to researchers, the IPCC have failed to take into account that when carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, plants thrive, become larger, and are able to absorb more CO2….A compounding effect if you will.
      Scientists have found that carbon dioxide stays in leaves longer than previously thought, acting as a fertiliser and accelerating plant growth As part of the carbon cycle, plants use light to photosynthesise carbon dioxide, turning it into carbohydrate to grow and releasing oxygen as a waste product. It is now estimated that nearly half the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the trees we have not cut down. The clear message to all you global warming doomsday experts is to forget the junkets, get off your arses and plant more trees.

    2. Chickory says:

      By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rain forests, which go hand in hand with overpopulation, adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation, a conservative estimate.

  11. Mei says:

    The most effective solution to reduce global warming is to replace the world’s forests. Amazon forests alone provide 20% of the world’s oxygen we breathe while all the world’s forests combined mops up 38 Billion tons of carbon dioxide created by mankind every year. Since man arrived nearly half the world’s trees have disappeared. In the same period 30% of America’s trees have been cut down. Recent studies show that humans are removing 15.3 million trees per year in the tropics alone.

  12. Oceana says:

    The use of the word SHALL stopped the United States cold when it showed up to sign what was to be the final draft of the historic Paris Accord. John Kerry made it clear that unless the term SHALL was replaced with the word SHOULD America would walk away. In order to avoid the Paris conference from becoming a complete debacle the delegates conceded there had been a “typo mistake”, which could easily be “fixed” by replacing SHALL with the non-binding SHOULD.

  13. Randoff says:

    Donald Trump got elected with one of the greatest margins in US history, little wonder with comments like: “The global warming bullshit has got to stop, our planet is freezing, record low temperatures and our global warming scientists are stuck in ice”. Lets hope he sticks to his guns and gets rid of these bludgers.

    1. Bigelow says:

      If you look at the increase in average world temperatures per decade from 1890 to 1990 (0.44 degrees C), it seems incredible how they could possibly build an industry on such a small amount of global warming.

      1. Hal says:

        How can the scientists be so precise given chaotic nature of the world’s weather?. They don’t provide a margin of error..0.44 degrees C over 100 years is miniscule when you see what it looks like on the thermometer.

  14. Seymour says:

    The rate of warming has more than doubled since the period you refer to. From 1975 to 2016 world temperatures have risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius in only 41 years and that includes the so called pause of 18 years. At this rate, in the 100 years from 1975 to 2075, temperatures would have risen by 1.5 degrees Celsius. This makes me think that the IPCC target of limiting the increase in warming to 2.0 degrees Celsius by the the year 2100 is going to be a challenge.
    Th Paris accord allows India to double, even treble its current rate of emissions which is a worry.

  15. Dougie says:

    The term used to describe the lack of consideration for others, “I’m alright jack”, could not be a more appropriate description of the deniers who don’t give a stuff about our future generations.

    1. Stephanie says:

      I agree. They would not have presented Al Gore and the IPCC with the Nobel Peace Prize or awarded Tim Flannery the Australian Of The Year without there being clear proof of man-made global warming. Without the work of Tim Flannery we would not have had our desalination plants constructed in preparation for the world drought. Clearly, it is only a matter of time when we reach the point where our dams will no longer fill.

  16. Mallaway says:

    It appears that the United States may not honor the Paris agreement and Australia might not fully commit to it if some members of the Turnbull government have their way. Tony Abbott said “It is significant, we should take reasonable steps to limit our emissions, but the last thing we should do is impose socialism in the name of misguided environmentalism, and that has been the risk for a very long time.” In any event the accord will collapse if Trump pulls out.

    1. Doomsday Clock Ticking says:

      Given this drumbeat of news, climate scientists are worried. They’re blogging about the death threats they’ve received over their work. They’re warning about threats to their future research funding. Some are even backing up public data on private servers because they fear that the Trump administration might cut the cord on federal climate research programs.

    2. Hoganville says:

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) based on what was thought to be global warming at that time (1988), despite, only a decade before, many of its own scientists were warning of an ice age. The lack of information made available to public made it difficult to challenge but that all changed with the advent of modern day computers.

    3. Rodney says:

      Quote from the National Academy of Science. “Using an energy–economic growth model that accounts for a range of demographic dynamics, we were able to demonstrate that slowing population growth could provide 16–29% of the emissions reductions suggested to be necessary by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change. You would think that overpopulation would have been number one item on the agenda at the Paris conference, but there was no mention of the subject whatsoever, which makes one question the motives of conference and whether we should be funding the IPCC.

  17. Larrydoodle says:

    How could they set up all these powerful bureaucratic organisations in 1988, based on such flimsy evidence, even though the average temperatures over the previous 40 years, (1940- 1980) were stable, including some cooling, (scientists had requested funding to combat the ice age), when the average temperature in the period from 1981 to 87 showed an increase of only approximately 0.17 C.

  18. Warren says:

    A chart showing mean temperature released by the NCDC/NESDIS/NOAA indicated two warming periods almost identical, (parallel), over approx 30 years, 1910 to1940 and 1976 to 2005 and the relatively stable period between 1946 and 1976.
    The IPCC tell us that man was responsible for most of the latter period of warming and the previous being caused entirely by natural events? What caused temperatures to remain stable for 30 years??

    1. Esmeralda Nitchwell says:

      Since 1880 the earth has warmed by only 0.72 Degrees Celsius which is equal to 0.00529411764 Degrees Celsius per year. Why are they wasting so much money on trying to implicate man for what is almost zero natural warming. If you don’t agree then have a look and see what .72 Degrees Celsius looks like on a thermometer. One thing that Trump has got right….it is all bullshit!

  19. Florida Mansion says:

    US support was vital to the establishment of the IPCC. The US government supported it initially because they saw its creation, in 1987-88, as a way to reduce activism and controlling their policy agenda. Unfortunately it has back fired, instead we have seen the manipulation of data, to create world panic and justify their existence, has got out of hand with many of its members trying to outdo each other with exaggerations and concealment. They were still able to show a small average temperature rise of approximately 0.15 C in the mid-eighties, even though the previous thirty years had shown no global warming whatsoever, enabling them to expand and receive more funding.

  20. Republican says:

    According to the IPCC, humans burn fossil fuels and release greenhouse gases, those gases enter the atmosphere where they cause increases in global temperatures and climate consequences such as more frequent and severe heat waves, droughts, changes to rainfall patterns, and rising seas. But now scientists say that not all of the carbon dioxide we emit ends up in the atmosphere. The IPCC, who analyze scientists reports, say that about 40% actually gets absorbed in the ocean waters. Which is a pity really because it is needed to sustain our planet’s ecosystem.

  21. Realist says:

    China’s so-called “commitment” in the recent Paris accord is not to reduce carbon emissions at all, but rather only to build as many coal plants as they want for the next fourteen years and then cease increasing emissions after 2030! At which point, of course, they reserve their right to change their mind. Who exactly is going to embrace that “leadership” and increase their consumers’ cost of electricity by triple or so starting right now? I mean, the Europeans are stupid, but are they that stupid? Francis Menton Manhattan Contrarian

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

*