2009 Temperature
The Herald reports:
This year is likely to be among the 10 hottest years on record, early figures from the World Meteorological Organisation indicate.
As delegates gathered in Copenhagen for the second day of world climate negotiations, the WMO said average global temperatures from January to October placed 2009 about 0.44C above the long-term average – making it the fifth warmest year since instrumental climate records began in 1850.
The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997, the WMO said.
The decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) was warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s.
I’ve been studying a fair bit of the raw data around average temperatures, and it is far more complex than one might assume, mainly because there is no actual way to calculate it, as the temperature varies every few kms. The spread of temperature stations is not even. In an ideal world you might have a measuring point every 100 square kms, but that is impossible.
That is why most of the data we read talks about the deviation from a long-term average. Because that doesn’t have to be spread evenly. If you use the same measuring place, you can accurately say the temperature at this point was higher in year x than the average of these years. And if you choose lots and lots of locations, and they are not hand picked to give you selected data, then it is fairly safe to say average temperatures are rising.
And that is fairly uncontroversial. Even amongst “skeptics” few people are saying the average temperature is not warmer. There is some talk of whether it has warmed since 1998, but that is useful to view in context.
The above graph I have created myself using the raw data on the web from three sources – the US National Climatic Data Centre (holds the world’s largest collection of climate data – they have 1.2 PB of digital data), NASA and the UK Met Office (the infamous Hadley).
Each centre compares to a different “average” period. The US NCDC compares to the century 1901 – 2000. NASA compares to the period 1951 – 1980 and the UK Met Office to 1961 to 1990.
They all show much the same direction, but not to the same magnitude. This is what one would expect. The graph does put post 1998 in context somewhat. 1998 was a very high year, and there is still an upwards trend – even if it has not yet exceeded 1998. The 2009 data is based on te monthly data for the first ten months of the year.
In yesterday’s thread there was a very good comment by Ben:
Global warming from GG emissions is the sum of two parts. First, a direct warming effect: a doubling of CO2 adds 1 to 1.5C to temperatures. No controversy there. But to get warming beyond that requires a second effect, positive net climate feedbacks, and the science on both the sign and magnitude of feedbacks is completely up in the air. About 80% of the IPCC’s 6.4C maximum warming depends on large positive feedbacks, which are completely unknown. It is not yet clear whether clouds and water vapor damp or add to underlying variation.
So there is consensus on direct effects, but on feedbacks, none at all.
I am not a scientist. But it is basic science that more greenhouse gases will increase temperature, if everything else remains constant. Ben says (I have not checked) that a doubling adds 1.5C. This is (as I understand it) uncontroversial and not disputed. This means that an option of do nothing is not particularly wise.
There is debate over whether there is “positive feedback” or not, and to what extent. Most scientists say there is, but this is not a case of something proven beyond dispute – it is based on models.
I have tended to take the formal IPCC reports as the most likely scenario. The stolen e-mails have damaged some of the credibility of IPCC processes – especially the boasting about making sure certain dissenting opinions are kept out. That really has rung some warning bells.
However even if one doubts this projections in terms of positive feedback, it is worth remembering there is really no doubt over the direct effects.
Where I think the debate should really be, is how much one spends on mitigation instead of adaptation. I do have real doubts that spending a trillion dollars or so globally on mitigation is sensible. Spending on adaptation may well be a better spend. However it is not quite a case of either/or but a mixture of both. Spending nothing at all on mitigation (ie never decreasing emissions) will result in inevitable temperature increases that will make life difficult in the future. Now this may not be in the next 100 years, but in the next thousand.
I have little time for those who claim that the world is doomed if by Xmas Eve there is not a decision to reduce emissions to a certain level by 2020.
But likewise I have little time for those who say it is all a giant conspiracy, and there is no need to do anything at all. I hasten to say that even prominent sceptics such as Ian Wishart do not hold that view. Almost every sceptic I know, says they are sceptical about how fast the planet is warming, and how much of it is due to mankind. Very few say that there is no warming at all, and that greenhouse gases are not contributing to that.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:17 am
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is the UN system’s authoritative voice on the state and behaviour of the Earth’s atmosphere, its interaction with the oceans, the climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources.
Just like those other impartial scientific endeavours the CRU & IPCC.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:20 am
No debate over the direct effects – except most people seem to ignore the research showing that pre-historic increases in CO2 lagged increases in temperature by something ilke 800 years.
To be sure, the world may well be warmer – after all the climate is changing all the time. But to think that we are going to somehow stop that by paying through the nose just seems ludicrous. After all – that big yellow ball in the sky is not really even considered in the models as far as I understand.
We should be making every effort to limit our impact on the environment, but I do not see how throwing money at the developing countries is going to do that.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:23 am
This is an excellent summation, it’s common sense backed by scientific facts. At least through the duration of Copenhagen it would be good to have a separate daily climate topic so that isolates most of the predictable opposition regurgitation. It gets a bit tiresome rehashing the same old obstinance.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:26 am
No conspiracy. Bloody fortuitous timing on that WMO release though.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:28 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
December 9th, 2009 at 7:32 am
I accept man-induced climate change. But , I don’t know if the boffins really understand long term effects at all.
If the worlds governments are serious, people are going to have to accept ‘nanny state’ interference.
The only affect of the NZ ETS on me, is that everything will cost more, leaving me less money in my retirement. I will not cut back on energy usage at all.
I suspect this will be the same with most people.
If the government was truly serious about reducing carbon emissions, they’d make energy saving bulbs compulsory. This is a very minor change for the majority of people but look at the uproar.
Showers need cutting back.
Large screen tv’s need banning.
Large cars need banning.
The most effective long term plan, is to reduce the world population through family size policies.
And so on.
Nanny state is the best way to reduce emissions. Not by increasing taxes.
[DPF: You have it all wrong. For a start if the energy source is not greenhouse gas emitting, then energy saving bulbs make no difference. And I use energy saving bulbs because they do save me money - not because of climate change. Having a cost for carbon does change usage - a million years of economics tells us that price matters]
December 9th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Three sources yes but the same raw data just processed and laid out differently which is why the graphs match these are not independent observations!!!
Nobody denies the climate is changing nor that people have some small effect but it is sheer hubris to think that we can consciously change the future direction of the climate. We can’t.
As a gedankenexperiment suppose it were possible to set the worlds annual average temperature who would you trust to define what it should be?
In the real world the climate is far more than just one parameter temperature and the focus on the global average temperature by the boffins is an absurdity beyond belief while the global elite discussing controlling it by fiddling with atmospheric levels of CO2 which is a minor player in setting the worlds thermostat is Monty Pythonesque.
What matters is that the crops grow which requires Sunlight, Rain and dare I say it CO2.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:50 am
It is indeed a great summary, I am all for limit our impact on the environment, this is cut n dry, but am with Bandycoot, throwing money left right and center is not going to solve it…
Being a large scale grower of Vegetables, I beg to differ that things are wamring up. It is interesting seeing it from a growing perspective, we have just had our coldest winter in many many years, trying to plant in the Ohakune region in October was the coldest on record… Go figure…
December 9th, 2009 at 7:54 am
I have a very hard time with accepting CO2 is the awful killer it is made out to be. For example, many people ask why as an astronomer we only ever look for carbon based life forms. After all, just because all life on earth is carbon based why do other life forms have to be? Carbon however is a miracle element. It is the only element we know (other than silicon which is almost identical to carbon) that can connect up to four different atoms together at once. This allows it to act as the “glue” to form extremely complex molecules and is the reason why it is essential for all life on earth.
With this in mind, try asking a very basic question: what is the level of CO2 we should be aiming for in our atmosphere? I have never come across any artical that can with any sophistication explain what it should be and why.
Currently it is sitting at about 540 ppm, but historically it has averaged between 1000-1200 ppm for the last 600,000 years and has been as high as 7000 ppm. Yet it would be easy to believe that doubling CO2 would be catastrophic for the earth based on the rhetoric.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Exactly Andrei
This is all “adjusted” data, adjusted by the same scientists who are controlling the three core datasets that “prove” global warming.
These are the people who brought us the “hockeystick”, the most influential tree in the world, and eliminated the Medieval warm period.
Last year they acknowledged that 1998 was the warmest year in the 20th century and we can expect up to 20 years of cooling. Incovenient, but easily fixed – as now, as if by magic, we have “proof” of more warming.
How very convenient, and timely even.
Go to the link posted by Captain Crab, look at what these people have done to the Darwin temperature readings.
Disappointed David.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:56 am
DPF – smooth the lines into a single moving average and add CO2 levels for the years that are available – would be interested to see what it looks like – my guess is there is no visible relationship
December 9th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Of course the horrible cold winter and last couple of lousy summers in New Zealand are just weather, not evidence of anything…
December 9th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Crap. There are multiple sources of data on multiple things. But that doesn’t fit with trying to tie everything to a few emails. The noise of concerted bullshit keeps overshadowing areas of real concern.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Obfuscation again. The whole thing isn’t about whether temperatures change and CO2 levels with it (although there certainly ain’t consensus about causality there), it’s about government control and world government.
Local governments can’t even run waste water plants effectively, national governments can’t run postal services or healthcare, who really thinks global governments can “run the climate”? A tactical nuclear device aimed at Copenhagen would do the trick nicely I’d say, get rid of the lot in one blast.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:03 am
DPF In light of last nights poll on Close up (77 Whishart 23% Morgan) where are the polls? I’m sceptical of that result and TVNZ may be feeling red faced?
December 9th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Sure Pete
But the three major data sources have “adjusted” their data, and have consistently resisted sharing the source data with anyone.
In the case of the CRU it seems that they have accidentally deleted the source data, coincidentally shortly after a series of emails threatening to delete it rather than hand it over to. Wasn’t Dr Jones stepped down pending investigation, isnt the UK Met service having to recreate all the data from scratch, isnt Michael Mann under investigation at Penn?
The we have the Harry read me txt file, which seems to suggest that the CRU model is simply garbage.
So, some of us have our bullshit detectors going off at full tit.
Want to explain why Mann falsified the hockeystick chart while you are at it?
Or even while manbearpig Gore is hiding from Copenhagen?
We can all agree that pollution is bad, and that heaving chemicals and shit into the atmosphere is unlikely to have positive impacts, but really, declaring CO2 to be a pollutant, saying we need to pay billions of dollars into scam offset schemes. Guilting us into increased taxes and government controls. When there is no reliable cost-benefit data.
By all means care about the environment, but lets not forget our critical reasoning faculties.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:07 am
GISS is run by James Hansen, a global warming advocate (he has been arrested at a climate change protest rally). His dataset is “interesting”, in that it keeps being changed. The historical record keeps being adjusted.
http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif
December 9th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Surely polls on issues are nearly as important (indicating why) as which party we would vote for?
December 9th, 2009 at 8:11 am
So where is any evidence that warming is not a consequence of Milankovitch cycles, variation in Earth’s orbit? Does CO2 build-up lag, masking the entry to a new ice age? It would be a real bugger if we destroy world economies with ETS’s based on one cause without eliminating others. Have all the scientists and researchers been concentrating their efforts where the money is?
Oh, well . . . at least they may be able to afford the ETS’s they are instrumental in creating.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:19 am
cant resist this:
[DPF: You have it all wrong. For a start if the energy source is not greenhouse gas emitting, then energy saving bulbs make no difference. And I use energy saving bulbs because they do save me money - not because of climate change. Having a cost for carbon does change usage - a million years of economics tells us that price matters]
I think DPF has been getting his economics data from the CRU. A million years of economics!? plus or minus 600,000 maybe.
Actually economics tells us that incentives matter, and price is but one incentive. I always thought economics was about individuals maximising utility for a given cost.
Simple really, If you make electricity more expensive, (which we have in NZ, because of silly government policy and the need to build expensive inefficient windfarms) I will burn more wood to keep warm. Hope the wood is good for the environment, because the other key lesson from economics is the law of unintended consequences. If you ban wood, then old people start dying and the rest of us migrate to australia.
Although I would have thought that a century of “scientific” socialism would have provided enough lessons about why government should not be given access to really big levers of economic control.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:19 am
DPF, good summary. I’d add to your consideration of mitigation v’s adaptation some consideration of what we’re doing at the moment. The most important question is whether the particular ETS that we have the most efficient/effective way to assign a price to carbon.
The media are framing the debate as skeptics v’s believers, and clearly coming down on the side of the believers. But to a large extent that is debating a straw man – the useful debate is about what we should do, and they are ignoring that entirely.
kevin_mcm: it isn’t supposed to directly correlate CO2 with temperature. If you plot level of excess CO2 against the rate of change in temperature, I believe you get something approximating a straight line. That is to say, every year that we have CO2 greater than the recent average we warm by 0.0x degrees.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:21 am
This is the sort of persistent eye rolling absurdity that draws attention form the real issues.
hj, the TVNZ “poll” is meaningless – who would be bothered to watch that let alone spend money “voting”.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Monckton appears to be trying to get the CRU/NASA/NOAA guys to sue him.
This is from a talk he gave in Berlin a couple of days ago. Well worth the watch.
As for the data sets – all of them are mostly based on the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) including the satellite data which is calibrated against it. GIGO stands for these sets like any data set. We know NIWI (and most other countries NIWAs) ‘adjust’ their data. GHCN does the same when they get it, then it gets to CRU (and NASA and NOAA?) and they ‘adjust’ it more. How many adjustments does it take to make it worthless?
Using ice-cores from Greenland this guy shows how easily you make the graphs look bad or good depending on your bent. Very, very interesting article as well as giving some historical perspective on temperatures based on real life ice cores not computer models.
Oh and DPF – if we keep going at the same rate we are going now with emissions, c02 is expected to double -ie from 380ppm to 760ppm – sometime around 2150.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Kevin_Mcc said…
DPF – smooth the lines into a single moving average and add CO2 levels for the years that are available .
I would use Wavelet, since it is excellent in extracting the long-term-trend component from time-series thus eliminating the short-term-fluctuation (noise). The problem with using moving averages is that the higher the lag specified, the the moving averaged filtered data would become shorter. Wavelet is heavily used by climate scientists in their temperature time-series analysis, even that oracle and warmist Tamino uses it a lot to debunk claims by climate skeptics. I noted that he has misused wavelet in some of his debunking (ie, completely inapplicable to the domain problem he critiqued).
DPF, you can find free wavelet (open-source) software on the net, which there are a few available.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Irving Langmuir (31 January 1881 – 16 August 1957) was a Nobel Prize winning Chemist and Physicist who coined the term Pathological Science in 1953.
This average Global temperature argument fits the profile quite well
Langmuir’s Laws of bad science
December 9th, 2009 at 8:40 am
“Ben says (I have not checked) that a doubling adds 1.5C.”
Not sure what you mean by this. Pre industrial CO2 concentration was 280 ppm now it is 340 ppm.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Thanks for the mention David.
Here’s an interesting comparison of raw versus adjusted data for one Australian station. For this station, the adjustments convert a weak cooling trend in the raw data for that station to a strong warming trend of 6C/century.
For that one station at least, those adjustments are a scandal. Have a read of the link.
If this is a general pattern (there is currently no way to know – nobody releases their data) then the Hadley Center will be crucified when the raw and adjusted data is finally released.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:40 am
I say we take off and nuke Copenhagen from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure. “Adiós, muchachos.”
December 9th, 2009 at 8:55 am
DPF, you are looking at ‘poor’ datasets for your graphs.
As you said, it would be better if there was a widely spaced set of temperature stations.
Did you know that satellites have been recording the world temperatures continuously since 1979?
See http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
The most reliable datasets here is UAH MSU followed by RSS MSU.
The current ‘anomaly’ is +0.25 degrees (12 months average).
They update the data each month.
I look at the mid-tropospheric graph as the most pertinent, as this is where the alarmists said the global warming signal would be most obvious. e.g. http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.html (can anyone spot a significant trend over the 30 years? Look pretty flat to me!)
December 9th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Ross, anyone can find a graph that fits their argument. It’s a lot harder to find a compelling argument against multiple graphs from multiple sources that tend to match observed seasonal changes etc etc.
I think it’s much more important to be looking at things like whether the temperature rise is on a temporary plateau or if it has found a natural limit. That approach seems a lot more credible than claims of a socialist or capitalist world takeover by the UN when they can’t even do anything about Somalia.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Ah, 1998.. I remember it well. We stood in line to buy extra fans to cool the house down and because my wife is sensitive to heat we went for long drives in the bliss of air conditioning in a small space.
The fans, all half dozen of them were quietly packed away one by one through the noughties and these days we are more concerned to buy good firewood.. about 40% more than we used in the 1980s and 90s. Unsurprisingly our firewood suppliers tell us life has been good these past few years.
We have a heat pump now, which saves a lot of firewood chopping, and its bloody marvelous to set on cooling on those couple of dozen days each summer when it actually gets really warm.
I don’t know about you guys, but when I talk to real people.. you know, the ones with bodies, they tell me that 1998 was *hot*, but those days are long gone and when we talk about the weather mostly we talk about the recent “pleasant” summers, and the seemingly colder winters.
JC
December 9th, 2009 at 9:16 am
“That approach seems a lot more credible than claims of a socialist or capitalist world takeover by the UN”
Just read the draft agreement Pete Goebells George.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:21 am
There is no question in my mind that the planet is warming (and cooling, and wetter and drier etc). That’s been our history for eons. We are coming out of a Little Ice Age so we have seen warming since the mid 1800’s
However on the subject of how much warming mankind is responsible for, I’d suggest that if there was clear evidence of this there would be no need for the A-Team of climatologists to go to the length they have to falsify the science. By contrast, there is now solid and growing evidence that this falsification is endemic in a climate science community that has become obsessed with proving an presupposition.
Climate Change is masterfully packaged so that concerned people switch off their bullshit detector in the face of scientific gobbledegook and simply trust the messengers. Well those messengers have proven themselves liars and frauds, and the tide is turning against their propaganda.
Unlike trusting Pete, I believe this is part of a UN-driven agenda for increased global governance. I have previously posted quotes and links to public UN documents that detail aspirations for gobal governance, taxation and wealth re-distribution. To dismiss this evidence out of belief that conspiracies don’t happen is manifestly foolish.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:26 am
“the WMO said average global temperatures from January to October placed 2009 about 0.44C above the long-term average – making it the fifth warmest year since instrumental climate records began in 1850.
The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997, the WMO said.
The decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) was warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s.”
The above three facts are all incorrect. Lies that the NZ Herald and its cadre of fake journalists willingly propagandize for their political masters.
What a disgraceful contemptible organisation. These people no longer even make a pretence of doing their job. Searching for the truth and shining light on fraud and corruption. They’re part of the same elitist power bloc who have framed this deception. It is the work of bent politically motivated or grant driven academics/ scientists, corrupt politicians and the politically partisan group who run NZ’s media.
We know the Herald are corrupt from their reluctance to report comprehensively on the reality of the email scandal. For just one example.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Even if it was a non-fringe aim to think the UN is capable of having the clout and wide enough support to come anywhere near close to achieving it defies history and logic.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:35 am
I would agree with JC and getstaffed on this question. We say the earth is getting warmer, but has it got warmer since 1998? We had snow in town this year for the first time in five years. Wellington had snow falling in Lambton Quay for the first time in 14 years. We had a very cold winter. But the earth is warming up? How come we don’t feel it?
Secondly we know the earth was warmer somewhere around the 10th to 14th centuries. Greenland was actually green and pastoral farming was possible. Apparently even in the time of Henry VIII they were growing grapes in England and producing wine. So we know historically the earth was warmer than it is now. And the world didn’t end.
Thirdly there seems to be a need for significance, particularly among secular people. There has to be a catastrophe that needs urgent action. Remember Y2K? That was going to be the end of civilisation, or the dawn of a new civilisation, depending on what book you read. In the 1970s scientists were predicting a new ice age as the earth got cooler. Secular people need a cause to get behind. At the moment its global warming, or is that climate change? A few years ago it was genetically modified food.
In summary I am all for responsible stewardship of the planet. Even Christians myself can get behind something like that. It is God’s creation after all. But I don’t think the world is going to end if we don’t slash carbon emissions by 40% immediately. I just don’t believe the world is getting warmer. Even if it did I just don’t believe it would be a catastrophe. And I am not sure that changes in temperature are due to man-made carbon emissions, or if they simply reflect natural cycles, may be due to increased sunspot activity.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:40 am
DPF, you think carbon taxes will reduce carbon emissions. I don’t think so.
I’ll bet a dozen beers, that in 5 years time NZ’s carbon emissions will have increased.
The only way the governments goals could be achieved is to take a far heavier approach. I don’t believe the govt is really serious about reducing emissions.
Personally, I think they should use space mirrors to deflect sunlight or some other high tech solution… technology will save the day in the end.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Bullshit.
1. According to NOAA, we’re on our 4th year of global cooling and 2008 was the coldest year since 2000.
2. Mojib Latif (a huge contributor to IPCC reports) told a conference in Geneva in Septmber that the Earth was in a cooling phase.
3. All four global temperature records now agree that (surface) air temperatures are falling. It’s important to understand the difference between satellite data and land-based thermometer data, because the alarmists ignore satellite data and use the land-based thermometer data to “spin” the results. The four temp data we have are from – Remote Sensing Systems in California; University of Alabama in Huntsville, using the NASA Aqua satellite; Hadley Centre in the UK; Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA.
SOURCE
So, no, I don’t believe 2009 is the warmest year.
Heck, we have cities like Houston having the earliest snowfall on record. last week
December 9th, 2009 at 9:44 am
From the Times
Anyone see the trick in here?
The WMO have declared an increase on the basis of leaving out the period from 1990 thru 2000. This was a very warm decade, and had it been included would show it was cooler (not 0.44 warmer) in the last decade.
Another disgraceful manipuation of data to support the Religion.
The link posted above (The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero) is worth reading.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:44 am
True – except that the Greens think that medieval technology will save us.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:48 am
“Even if it was a non-fringe aim to think the UN is capable of having the clout and wide enough support to come anywhere near close to achieving it defies history and logic.”
Why are you Pete, known as one of the biggest politically partisan leftist propagandists on Kiwiblog, so anxious to dispel this suggestion?
Jesus H Christ, there are even pronouncements from key GW proponents stating this is their real objective.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Oh for fucks sake, who supplied the graph, Al Bore. How can you stick up a graph that only shows the last 29 years and claim it’s getting hotter. As a mathematician David I would expect a bit more objectivity, 2.9 million years would have given a better indication but no we can’t paint the National Socialists and the many thousands of corrupt politicians, self serving scientists and deluded fools in Carbonhargen as not been the full quid. Fuck if the truth be known I could probably produce a graph pointing out how cold the bloody weather is given a bigger enough time spread. Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors, bullshit and bluster, bullshit and bluster.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:49 am
“Ben says (I have not checked) that a doubling adds 1.5C.”
Not sure what you mean by this. Pre industrial CO2 concentration was 280 ppm now it is 340 ppm.
And wasn’t the CO2 concentration in the Cenozoic several times highter than it is today.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Andrei, this is true.
READ MORE – he then compares the data and catches the similarities.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Good Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal : The Totalities of Copenhagen
… and Stephens goes on to expand on Revolutionary fervor, Utopianism, Intolerance, Monocausalism and Indifference to evidence
December 9th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Sorry, DPF – too much of a well intentioned effort to find a political compromise. I much prefer the “do nothing” policy given the immense amount of doubt on whether there really is a problem. The more I read, the longer the list of reasons to have doubts. For example, you need to read the highly reputable Lindzen of MIT on the greenhouse gas and radiation heating issue before you say things like “it is basic science that more greenhouse gases will increase temperature”. The climate heating and cooling processes are much more complex than the IPCC pretends. I could go on … but people like Monckton do it so much better.
I can’t get myself past the idea that it would be wonderful if we could have the Medieval Warming Period or the Roman Warming Period over again. It is no wonder the IPCC, Mann and co. have worked so hard to suppress our knowledge of the appeal of these past warmer periods. Instead what we get are silly MSM scare tactics about flooding Nelson and the like.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Anyone who subscribes to the “this is not a take over by the UN/ global socialists POV” should read this PDF for only one example of how wrong they are-
http://www.sera.org.uk/fileadmin/copenhagen_final.pdf
Example text-
This set of essays draws on our social democratic and progressive traditions – the need for innovation and a re-modelled economic system coupled with a greater commitment to global justice. We need a compact uniting the developed and developing worlds with the concept of the common good triumphing against narrow country or regional interests. As Margot Wallström argues in her essay, A Call for Climate Justice, the developed world must recognise and take responsibility for the effect their policies and lifestyles have on the poorest and most vulnerable.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:59 am
ps –
December 9th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Doesn’t matter if the planet is warming or cooling. In either case there will be winners and losers. In a warming scenario NZ will be a winner. We’ll have no shortage of water or CO2 to grow crops, trees and food to supply the losers. Happy days, we’ll exceed Australia economically in no time because they will be losers. Ever tried to sit down to a dinner of coal, gold, manganese or tungsten. Give me fresh Canterbury lamb, jersey bennes from Oamaru, Ohakune carrots, Pukekohe brocolli and minted Marlborough peas any day. Oh yeah and don’t forget that peppery Pinot from Central Otago.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:17 am
What’s up with the karma?
December 9th, 2009 at 10:20 am
This is priceless. As reported by the Guardian no less… that bastion of Alarmism:
So now those that are scambling for more power and beating up on the less powerful. What a charade.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Can we see the pre-adjustment graph now?
December 9th, 2009 at 10:24 am
If we’re going to take action against the possibility that climate change is significantly impacted by human acitivity then I suggest that we mandate population controls. One child per parent in the family. I think given everything the greenies would have us believe that we can basically blame NZ’s contribution to AGW on welfare policy encouraging breeding for benefits.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Ps, the real proof that warming is not happening is in the stolen emails themselves.
In these private emails they talk about manipulating data to “hide the decline”.
If there is no decline, then what are they talking about?
Also from the emails – “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. ”
Lack of warming – The private emails between these ’scientists’ says it all really.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Google opinion + global warming and see whose been busy.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:30 am
getstaffed, doesn’t that indicate there are far to many selfish interests to make anything like a global government possible?
December 9th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Fletch – it is all about context. You see the ’stolen emails’ are being taken out of context.
and you also asked
Sorry – I just had to give negative karma for that one
I didn’t really mean in though.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I agree. But failing to have the clout and support doesn’t stop despots and rogue regimes attempting to inflict their tyranny on people… at a huge cost in terms of human suffering.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am
One of the better comments I have found on the World Meteorological Organisation claims (or should that read “propaganda”, given its nature and timing?):
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/12/8_What_the_UK_Met_Office_is_Not_Telling_Us.html
December 9th, 2009 at 10:52 am
If you’re referring to harmonious, democratic government then yes. However global government is all about power, and power is all about selfish interests prevailing over the weak or disengaged.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Great, except instead we have Copenhagen where negotiations are underway to decide who is going to get the best rental agreement. Copenhagen as rent seeking:
UN has assessed at $500 billion the cost of mitigation of climate change and another $500 billion for adaption.
G20 (including NZ) – everyones emissions to be capped forcing poor countries to adopt higher tech solutions and bridging finance that only the G20 can readily supply, whilst offering $120 billion in “politically committed aid” (expect only 30% or so to be paid like was case under Kyoto, ending 3rd world debt, Millenium goals, ending world hunger…) to poor countries. Net result: G20 generates net $450 billion in new technology sales and several more $billions in 3rd world debt.
G77 – the G20 needs to provide $600 billion (or $1.1 trillion) in treaty gauranteed aid (100% gauranteed payment) through the UN to finance the adaption and mitigation of climate change. Net result: G77 is $100 billion (or $600 billion ahead).
BrICSA – Asking rich countries to make serious cuts to emissions, whilst the developing world remains exempt (and BrICSA are co-sponsoring the G77 demands). Net result: BrICSA gains industrial producer business that is forced out of the G20, as it has done under the Kyoto protocols.
Copenhagen is not a conference about the enviroment. Copenhagen is a place where the world comes together to demand other parts of the world cough up vast sums in the name of the enviroment. “Adaption” and “mitigation” are merely billing lines.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:55 am
This poll commissioned by The Greenhouse Policy coalition (representing emitters) is a bit different from the Close Up one:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10614309
Perhaps the Close up poll only shows that the sceptics are desperate.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:59 am
New karma system is different. Not sure how I feel about being “well loved”. Rather seems to fly in the face of all the evidence.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:03 am
@Scott
Religious projection. If there was such a need, wouldn’t they just join up with the long-established masters of peddling catastrophe which needs urgent attention? You know, the “Accept Christ or go to Hell” brigade.
As someone who did rather well out of the Y2K issue (indirectly), I don’t recall anyone in my industry who thought the world would end or planes would fall from the sky. Hyperbole in the media is not a good measure of these things. You have to look past that and see the real issues. If you look at what companies did in terms of audits, code-inspections, replacing known non Y2K compliant software, asking vendors for assurances etc, it was in most cases fairly prudent stuff. The media love to exaggerate, so I wouldn’t look to them to gauge the magnitude of something.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Global warming….all emotion,no evidence.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Getstaffed isn’t it marvelous news, these corrupt bastards are more interested in ripping each other off, unfucking believable. Yes it’s a real dog and pony show now and I especially like the bit about cutting the UN out, I bet that goes down like a shower of shit. Time to tell idiot boy his government visa card has had it’s limit cut and the girls at Carbonhargen will only be chasing those from rich countries now, best he catch the next plane home.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:21 am
As I understand it, the incoming energy from the sun is enormously predictable. As long as we’ve been watching [not actually that long; you need satellites], it has varied on a 12-year cycle (IIRC) with about a <1% difference between the peaks and the troughs.
So the amount of heat we get is predictable and definitely not increasing.
Some people have mentioned sunspots. That's less well understood (again, AFAIK). It's thought that sunspots might promote cloud formation, but the role of clouds is debated. Low clouds trap heat, keeping the earth warm. High clouds reflect sunlight, cooling it down. There may be more going on. Which effect predominates? No one knows for sure. But models that assume clouds have a net warming effect tend to do better at modelling the present (or so I have read).
December 9th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Replying to Malcolm “Religious projection. If there was such a need, wouldn’t they just join up with the long-established masters of peddling catastrophe which needs urgent attention? You know, the “Accept Christ or go to Hell” brigade.”
I do think there is religious projection at work. I think the religious projection is in the hands of the secular progressives, for whom “climate change” is something of a religion. I believe it gives meaning to their world. We can save the world if we only slash carbon emissions by 40%. There are “priests”, the scientists at East Anglia, who have the knowledge. So yes, to me it has all the hallmarks of a religion, even including sacred texts which no one else may read. This being the raw data of the actual temperatures of the world. This sacred text is closely guarded and not available to anyone else, particularly modern-day heretics, the climate change “deniers”.
So yes Malcolm I do see religious projection at work. As to Y2K, there were many people at the time who wrote books about how Y2K was the dawn of a new civilisation. People did predict that planes were gonna fall from the sky, if we didn’t update our computers immediately. I remember the events quite well. In fact I think the sum total of the effect on the world was three computers went down in Kazakhstan, or some such place.
So yes I am a sceptic with regard to the claims of global warming, a new ice age, Y2K and other examples of religious “scientism”.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:31 am
The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero is up now.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818
How many more adjustments are there waiting for Revelation.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:52 am
DPF:
“There is debate over whether there is “positive feedback” or not, and to what extent. Most scientists say there is, but this is not a case of something proven beyond dispute – it is based on models.”
The scientific argument is not about the CO2 itself but rather the ‘knock on effects’. Thus it’s all about climate sensitivity. The Alarmists say the climate system is super sensitive; the Realists say it’s less sensitive.
The relevance of the models isn’t that one cannot produce an experiment that proves the hypothesis and thus is reliant on models.
Rather, it is that the models that process all this adjusted (and adjusted again and again) data assume only positive feedbacks. That is why they show run-away warming. However observed warming is less that what the models say should be occurring.
Despite what DPF says public policy is actually in response to the science of the positive feedbacks, the area of maximum scientific uncertainty.
DPF: “Almost every sceptic I know, says they are sceptical about how fast the planet is warming, and how much of it is due to mankind. Very few say that there is no warming at all, and that greenhouse gases are not contributing to that.”
This is a shocker.
Most climate realists think the climate changes. These cycles and changes have historically been unaffected by the activities of humankind. They would want greater evidence and scientific inquiry before assuming that any recent warming is wholly or largely or in part due to human activity. Thus the issue is one of attribution.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Real scientists are beginning to speak out – the thought police have kept them quiet for years now but the floodgates are opening.
Check this out Hurricane Expert Rips Climate Fears: ‘There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination’
You know how the doom mongers are always talking about “tipping points” well I do believe a tipping point in climate science is here and Copenhagen will turn out to be a wake for the junk science we have had rammed down our throats
December 9th, 2009 at 11:58 am
This argument ignores the core issue.
The key is whether these levels of CO2 would adversly effect how we currently live, and evidence says it will.
The problem is people see it as if we reach these levels its amageddon, its not, and people saying so are doing a world of diservice. However at these levels the amount of heat retained in our atmosphere is expected to increase (which the data seems to support, and the expected relationship between CO2 and heat would purpoit) which would result in climates changing. In some areas increases in temperatures would make the area inhabitable likely due to land turning to desert.
The other key area is rising sea levels as a result of increased temperatures will gradually reduce the amount of land avaliable.
So yes the past there was more Co2, we could live with more Co2 however it would likely be detremental. This is ignoring the whole benefits of better air quality from less polluting emmisions.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Scott,
I wasn’t disputing that there was lots of hysteria about Y2K. But from who? Generally not from companies using major software, software developers or software companies. In most cases there was a prudent and orderly evaluation of the software on hand and in most cases no problems were found. My point is that the media like a good story and you’ll often get an exaggerated sense of the magnitude of a problem from them. Y2K happened before blogging took off, but I suspect if it happened now, it wouldn’t be so over-hyped as their would be a lot of more sensible comment from industry people on blogs.
Your argument that climate change belief is akin to a religion seems to be based on nothing more than your idea that we all need a religion. Do you think you could be biased in that regard? By your reasoning you could call any science a religion. Which is really just an excise in debasing the language. Religion and science are poles apart.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
If the increase in temeperatures were to be the result of some previously unthought of factor- wouldn’t that mean we are really in the shit. At least human genaerated gases are something we can control.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Just like a stampeed of elephants reducing the number of roses in my garden, and asteroid strikes on my home making it more difficult to get up in the morning.
That aside, we’ve have increasing global temperatures since about 1650 (middle of the LIA). How has that impacted sea levels? What is the net de-population of coastal areas in the last 360 years?
December 9th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Jeff83:
“The key is whether these levels of CO2 would adversly effect how we currently live, and evidence says it will.”
Oh Dear.
It’s not the C02 but effects of it; primarily on cloud formation and types of clouds.
However rising levels of CO2 will boost agricultural output. Plant life love it.
I suggest you start building in plantation wood and don’t live in highrise concrete apartments – adds to CO2.
Yes. The climate changes. Get over it. Always has always will.
Yes wealthy societies are better able to adapt to this – look at the Dutch.
No. Copenhagen will make us poorer and therefore less able to adapt.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.”
This is all we bloody need – the world cooling anyway – because all the cockermammie [spell it how you choose] agencies implementing ETS’s and economy wrecking measures will, when the world cools, turn around and say THERE IT ALL WORKED.
Then where will we be?
December 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“Real scientists are beginning to speak out – the thought police have kept them quiet for years now but the floodgates are opening”
This is probably warmest decade on record, scientists say
1:48 pm December 8, 2009, by Jay
From the New York Times:
“COPENHAGEN — Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/12/08/this-is-probably-warmest-decade-on-record-scientists-say/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog
Bush announces fighting in Iraq is over
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s845976.htm
December 9th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
A lot of ice melt could cause that. That can be the problem with climate change, it’s never all in one direction. A major thaw in North America and outflow of fresh water disrupted the Gulf Stream caused a mini ice age in Europe.
Parts of NZ could feasibly cool if the Antarctic melts more – as the occasional iceberg path shows there are currents from the southern ocean that flow up past the east coast of the South Island. Unless that is blocked or rerouted by stronger tropical currents.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
hj – re ‘warmest decade on record’ – from above …
You are being hoodwinked. Wake up!
December 9th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Actually, its just that the 1961 to 1990 average temperature is used as the baseline temperature for which deviations are measured.
The article states that:
The decade 2000-2009 was 0.4 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, while the 1990s decade was 0.23 degrees higher, said Pope.
So they haven’t actually tried to obfuscate the 1990s out of the record.
I will look at the satellite data later, to see how it compares to the 1990s.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
More outspoken scientists showing up in this open letter to the UN:
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Forget the notion of a scientific consensus!
December 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Rod – Well see more of this. Sadly appealing to the UN will be a lost cause IMO. instead local citizens need to hold local politicians to account like the Aussies have done… even if in that instance there were mixed motives. Ideally the UN need to have their funding-balls put in a vice and the gauge set ‘crush’.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
People worried about sea level rises, like the parents of the poor girl featured in the Copenhagen nightmare scenario video etc. should read the item linked here
http://hallolinden-db.de/files/2009.10.20_Maledives_Open_Letter_Moerner.doc.pdf
December 9th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
kowtow, verrryy interesting. Thanks for the link.
People are being scared for no good reason. I bet the President of the Maldives and other similar leaders think that by keeping this secret they will get aid money given to them by the U.N or whoever else is in charge.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Another similar letter by the same scientist to The Specator re: The Maldives.
LINK
December 9th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
The average sea level in the Maldives is 1.8 metres. Their highest point is 2.4 metres. Don’t they have some justification in being worried? If the sea level doesn’t rise they are sweet. But if they do nothing and it does rise they are in salt creek, and a long way to paddle. If they did get swamped should we offer our apologies and let them come here?
December 9th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Pete, read the articles, and THIS ONE. The guy is an expert. He even made a short film to be shown on TV to show that they had nothing to worry about but it was censored by the Govt. It’s all about the money.
He also has a short film on youtube explaining his whole reasoning.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Pete – if the sea level rises are a result of natural fluctuations then how can anyone fix that? I’d happily endorse a refugee programme for anyone displaced by natural, permanent sea level rises. However I’m not happy to hand the UN billions for them to ‘manage’ this contingency on our behalf. Neither should you be.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I’ve read about Dr Mörner, I certainly wouldn’t risk my country on just his word, especially as his research is only up to 2003.
Would you risk your country on one of a number of differing opinions?
December 9th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Fletch – Pehaps IPCCs the tide-gauge is near Hong Kong’s international airport, which is skinking.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Melenie Phillips has it bang on yet again.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5596516/less-than-qualified-punditry.thtml
December 9th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
But, but, but, we’re all going to burn. Gordon Brown told me so.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
As you know getstaffed, I have a lot of doubts about the method being proposed to deal with it. In this money-centric world I can understand some of the reasoning behind trying to use financial incentives and disincentives to “encourage” change for the good. But in the best of circumstances ie all countries working together for the common good, I’m not sure it would work. And there are so many selfish agendas and adjustments withing countries and between countries it looks more and more like a mess. Maybe an expensive mess for some.
I can’t see Copenhagen succeeding in anything practical. I have my doubts anything worthwhile can be achieved, and we will end up crossing our fingers and trying to deal with anything if it happens.
But places like the Maldives, and Tuvalu – it is a big call for them to do nothing and hope they backed the right experts.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Pete George (2585) Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 7:23 am
This is an excellent summation, it’s common sense backed by scientific facts. At least through the duration of Copenhagen it would be good to have a separate daily climate topic so that isolates most of the predictable opposition regurgitation. It gets a bit tiresome rehashing the same old obstinance.
Pete, you certainly are getting tiresome
December 9th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Yes agree. But successive ruling governments who have their hands out for large dobs of cash, for a problem that stubbornly refuses to manifest, just strike me as not working in the best interests of their people.
Perhaps their leaders would be better focusing attention on obvious domestic issues of housing, health and economic growth… and quit dreaming about winning the UN lotto.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
One thing going for them is that if it does happen it should be gradual, although that could mean years or decades of uncertainty. One of the only certainties with all this is that it is bloody hard to measure.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I have a couple of quibbles with the post from DPF. The first is, while I understand the concept of data comparison, I wonder why bother with a graph of such a short time frame that does not put that warming in its proper perspective, which is over a very long term.
So I do that here and here.
Then there is this by DPF: I have tended to take the formal IPCC reports as the most likely scenario. The stolen e-mails have damaged some of the credibility of IPCC processes – especially the boasting about making sure certain dissenting opinions are kept out. That really has rung some warning bells.
I’m not going to litigate that particular email, aside from stating for the record that it is misrepresented as suppressing dissent when it was actually opposed to the publication of bad science, but I will say that even the US government, infamous for protecting its perceived national interest even if to the detriment of every other nation understands the science is “incredibly robust.”
I also have reservations about this statement by DPF: I have little time for those who claim that the world is doomed if by Xmas Eve there is not a decision to reduce emissions to a certain level by 2020.
I’m not aware of any in the scientific community asserting such a thing. Even in the worst case scenario, with many, many metres of sea level rise, which would include mass extinctions of the magnitude the earth has previously endured, the planet will survive. Humans and the remaining animals may well be reduced to masses huddled in the few clement spots, but as DPF says, that will be millenial process.
However, what is becoming increasing clear is that not taking drastic action will very likely cause irreversible change that will do enormous damage to the ability of humans and others to simply survive. But something will, and one school of thought is that human extinction it is not necessarily a bad thing for the planet, anyway.
The best summation of the scientific case for AGW is the article Global Temperature Change” published by the National Academies of Science, the premier scientific body of the United States.
The main fault of the climate models is that they appear to have severely underestimated the rapidity of the effects of climate change. We are now looking at a sea level rise of 1-2m this century. Here is an extract from a report commissioned by the insurance giant Allianz:
Combined sea level rise – global sea level rise (SLR) of up to 2 m by the end of the century
combined with localized sea level rise anomaly for the eastern seaboard of North America
Exposed assets in Port Megacities – A global sea level rise of 0.5 m by 2050 is estimated to
increase the value of assets exposed in all 136 port megacities worldwide by a total of $US
25,158 billion to $US28,213 billion in 2050. This increase is a result of changes in socio-
economic factors such as urbanization and also increased exposure of this (greater)
population to 1-in-100-year surge events through sea level rise.
Those cities have a combined population of 600m souls.
And adaptation for tens, even hundreds of millions in newly uninhabitable areas of the planet is not just a matter of dollars and cents. Look at the reluctance to accept refugees even today. Wait until the boats off our coast number in the thousands. What will we do: shoot them all? Some countries will, I’m sure.
The simple fact is that we do have an opportunity to minimise the damage we have already caused to the hopes of future generations.
Just as some call government borrowing inter-generational theft, allowing global warming to continue is akin to inter-generational genodice.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:15 am
I’m not aware of any in the scientific community asserting such a thing.
He doesn’t specify the scientific community – is probably more thinking of some of the NGOs.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am
And Luc and his fellow travelers wonder why they’re labeled Alarmists! Go figure.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I’ve got one recommendation for everyone interested in seeing the big picture of climate change. It is real, the climate is changing, and I believe over a reasonable time frame earth will warm more, before eventually heading back into another ice age. I will even concede a ‘hockey stick’ shape when you look at the 20th century trend. But look at the longer timescales in this analysis of ice core data http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553 and you’ll see why the earth should be warming.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
@ rightnow
Aside from the incredibly misleading graphs presented by your computer scientist blog author, this is the basic fact: CO2 emissions hang around in the atmosphere for perhaps thousands of years. So all the natural variation of the Holecene, which we still, by the way, experience, is overwhelmed by our CO2 emissions.
The Halocene has indeed been a beautiful window for humans, and we, with the science that can determine minute quantities of particles in our atmosphere, now know that we are closing that window by our own actions.
getstaffed,
There is nothing alarmist about millenial timeframes. We humans will adapt in the short term without too many problems but, if we don’t take drastic action, like just banning the burning of coal, then future generations face huge battles the WE have directly caused.
Do you really not care that that will be our legacy?
December 11th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Luc says @10.45pm,”The main fault of the climate models is that they appear to have severely underestimated the rapidity of the effects of climate change”..IMHO it should have read..”The main fault of the climate models is that they appear to have severely overestimated the rapidity of the effects of climate change”,i.e they are fucking garbage.Luc FFS “read the code”.
January 12th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
I wish the people on this planet would stop talking about global warming when it is really getting colder
there is a ice age comming what we need is more green house gasses to warm up the atmosphere ,
in the 62 years i have been alive i have seen it getting cooler since the late 80s i can remember when the temps were in the high 30s but now they are in the high 20s so the temperature is now around 8 deg lower .
The only reason they are pushing global warming is so some people will make more money, so greed is the real truth .
i was talking to a greeny the other day and all they talked about was making farmers and oil companies pay them for causing green house gases please everyone look at the real things and don’t let the greenies lies get louder
“have a good year”