The global warming flapdoodle…and the global COOLING evidence

Written by Helena Greenberg

Global warming has been the cry of government climate scientists since the 1980’s. But actual government data proves global cooling has taken over from warming during this century, as per the official U.S. satellite records (see graph).NOAA temp anomaly

What’s interesting about this graph? Well, first we see that, since 1977, the world temperature has been consistently hotter than the 20th century average. But if we look more closely, we can see that the heat has been abating since 1998.This data has been collected by NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) which is part of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), a scientific agency of the US Administration. NOAA is an international leader for temperature data. The two others are NASA’s GISS in the US, and the UK’s University of East Anglia’s CRU (Climate Research Unit), working jointly with the Hadley Center (of the Met Office).

The GISS webpage cannot be accessed presently at: http://www.data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp, but HAD-CRUT did publish their graphs for February, which confirm the new cooling trend:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Government-financed scientists, who collect and interpret the data, have in the past done their best to “hide the decline” (Climategate). Today, unfortunately, climate science continues to be corrupted by billions of dollars of government money. NOAA are arguably less corrupt than the other two, but they are still misleading and dishonest in the way they present things. On their webpage below we can read: “Arctic winter sea ice extent is 5th smallest since 1979″. It would have been more objective to say: “… is larger than in 2012, and the 5th smallest since 1979″.NOAA sea ice

The following title, on the other hand, was objective: “Surface melt on Greenland Ice Sheet back near average in 2013.”
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2013-arctic-report-card-surface-melt-greenland-ice-sheet-back-near

Greenland melt back

Anyway, what’s interesting is that we are witnessing a reversal of the warming trend. This was expected by “climate skeptic” scientists, who’ve been arguing for years that cooling and warming follow the variations of solar activity, not the emissions of CO2.

As solar radiation has been declining lately, it is not surprising that world temperature should be declining as well. Never mind the ritual IPCC flapdoodle* – political gesticulation meant to scare us into accepting carbon taxes and subsidies to the wind farm scam. Politicians won’t give up dishing out money to the wind industry, as part of it is returned to finance their electoral campaigns. They LOVE that “green” revolving door.

* flapdoodle: nonsense. Originally, “the stuff they feed fools on”, 1833.

In fact, we are half-way into solar cycle 24 (the sun’s activity follows cyclical patterns, the shortest lasting 10-13-year). Solar cycle 24 happens to be the weakest in 100 years. We are presently near or past its peak, and from the graph below you can see how low it is in comparison to the previous cycle.solar cycle 24

As we pass the peak, more cooling is to be expected. If solar cycle 25 is weaker still than # 24, temperatures could drop to the level of the Little Ice Age, the cold period from 1550 to 1850, which saw the Thames frozen solid, and crops rotting in the fields from too much rain. This prompted many Europeans to emigrate to America. In France, which was Europe’s grain basket, starving Parisians took to the streets asking for bread. Soon they developed a fancy for the guillotine, and executed their rulers. This begs the question: will history repeat itself?

If a “little ice age” would happen now, with 7 billion people on earth plus 75 million added every year, skyrocketing food prices and mass starvation would ensue. Yet, foolishly, our governments keep wasting money on ineffective wind turbines to cool (sic) the climate. Perhaps they do deserve the guillotine after all?

 

Helena Greenberg. Read more from Helena at her blog.

 

Comments (4)

  • Avatar

    DC

    |

    [b]3. [/b]Now here comes the “explanation” to the aforementioned global cooling: Cimate variability it is only due to solar activity, not the CO2 emissions. And another NOAA’s screenshot chart appears for pretended demonstration.

    Well, even anyway you mix up sunspot and solar radiation, the “overall demonstrating” graphic is a count of [b]sunspots from January 2000 to February 2014[/b] registered by the ISES. According to your post, lower the peak sunspot (called “activity”) is, more the temperatures should decline. But you don’t prove it! Let’s take the NCDC’s chart [7] and collate it in the ISES graph. I’ve done it and … well, [b]any resemblance of this theory to reality would be purely coincidential[/b].
    [img]http://goo.gl/v8Zv7e[/img]

    Are you speculating on what might happen during a new global cooling… [b]because in a particular season the temperatures weren’t warm enough to surpass a record[/b]?

    The simply copy&paste of official reports, such as a formula or a chart, don’t indicate accuracy neither reliability. A real result depends on correct interpretation and application.

  • Avatar

    DC

    |

    Mrs Helena Greenberg (or perhaps should I say Mark Duchamp?):[/b]

    Firstly, excuse my poor english. I will try to explain.

    [b]1. [/b]So, we have to focus our attention only on recent years? Because obviously the linear average of the century is rising. Just clic display trend in your NCDC link. Instead of accepting this fact, you refers to the Climatic Research Unit, where the smoothing line for these records seems not a moving average curve, but a “magnifying glass” unfit to find future trends.

    But wait… [b]why only February[/b]? Considering the above mentioned, with my humble suspicions, I just inquired of NCDC website what happens with the other months. If cooling effect were real, it should be confirmed for most of the year, not just in the shortest month, right? Could your conjecture not be as irrefutable as it seems? In fact, [b]outside of the lapse January-March, the impression of declining temperatures disappears[/b]. Let’s show annual averages. Is there a cooling evidence? No. Neither with a bimonthly average. Or a quarterly. Or a semester… which is consistent with the latest publications from the European Environment Agency ([url]http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/europe2019s-climate-Continues-to-change[/url]).

    [b]2. [/b]Maybe needing a most persuasive argument, you paste another NOAA screenshots. This time, some headlines about Arctic ice and Greenland ice whose redactions, according to the blogger, are selfishly interpreted.

    First, it is obvious that both headlines refer to different effects: the first to the ENTIRE ARTIC WINTER SEA ICE; the second to SUMMER GREENLANDIC ICE. So it is absurd to compare them.
    Second, [b]the fact that the melting Arctic don’t overtakes in 2013 the extremely low record of 2012 don’t necessarily break or reverse the actual trend[/b]. Contrarily, the European Environment Agency shows a downward trend [url]http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/arctic-sea-ice-1/assessment-1[/url]. As for the Greenlandic ice, also in annual terms [url]http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/greenland-ice-sheet-2/assessment[/url].

  • Avatar

    Doug  Cotton

    |

    Standard physics tells us why carbon dioxide has no warming effect and water vapour has a significant cooling effect, because it reduces the thermal gradient and thus lowers the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere..

    The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube]Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube[/url] confirms what physics tells us, namely that the force of gravity produces a state wherein the maximum [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy]entropy[/url] (at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium]thermodynamic equilibrium[/url]) has both a density gradient and a temperature gradient, because of the effect of gravity acting on molecules when they are in free path motion between collisions.

    Hence, since the whole greenhouse conjecture starts out from an assumption that the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]Second Law of Thermodynamics[/url] can be ignored and so (they think) isothermal conditions would apply if you removed all the “pollutants” like water gas, droplets and vapour, carbon dioxide and its colleagues from the atmosphere.

  • Avatar

    Alder

    |

    PSI and Helena Greenberg, thanks for the graph and the site references.
    Note- on the site you can choose the month and the graph gets drawn for you. February data show a clear decline of temperature in recent years, other months not so much.
    There is certainly no strong upward and onwards trend in the recent ~ 15 years worth of data.
    [Conclusion- CO2 is not guilty.]

Comments are closed