Long-term cooling trend cited as evidence FOR global warming

10
Contributed by David



The northern hemisphere is enjoying summer. Well for Singaporeans summer is all year due to your location. For the rest of us 30 degrees north or more, (I live at 42.35 N) summer is short. There have been a few 30+C days, but only a few this year. While 420 km north last week the weather people were predicting the day before we traveled that the next 5 days would have temperatures around 16 to 20C each day.



(To see the complete illustration from which this graphic was excerpted, see the SF Chronicle‘s version here.)
Never happened!

The warmest day we experienced was 16C and the coolest day only saw 14C. Cooler for sure.

These weather prognosticators are the same people who are attempting to scare the world populace into believing global warming is coming soon, sometime during the next 100 or so years.

Most weather forecast have trouble getting a five or seven day forecast correct and these folks want us to trust there forecast for 25, 50 or 100 years from now!

An article from PajamaMedia, links to a San Francisco Chronicle detail similar occurrences in America’s most populated state.



Want to know why global warming alarmists and climate scientists in general have lost credibility with the American public? Consider a new study released today — and the unintentionally hilarious weasel words of its author — as Exhibit A.

As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle today, a meteorologist did a 30-year survey of temperature and precipitation data for most of the largest cities up and down the state of California. Conclusion? In 75% of the
sites, the weather has grown colder and rainier than it used to be:

Of course, this “inconvenient truth” was not what either the study’s author nor the
Chronicle‘s reporter wanted to see, so the spin cycle goes into overdrive right
from the headline, which manages to use the word “warmer” first despite there
being only two warmer cities in the entire study: “CA climate: inland
warmer; coast cooler and wetter
.” Uh-huh. But that’s just the aperitif.
How does the author, a meteorologist named Jan Null who also happens to be on
the global warming bandwagon, explain away the trend he uncovered? Behold:

The data may appear to bolster the arguments of global warming skeptics,
but Null said the findings actually fit in with the predictions of scientists
who believe the climate is changing as a result of human-caused carbon
emissions.

“People say, ‘Wait a minute, what about global warming? Shouldn’t it be warmer?’ ” Null said. “Well, if you have more warm days in the Central Valley, you are going to have a stronger sea breeze so you will cool off the coastal areas. That certainly does not contradict any of the models about global warming. This is what is to be expected.”

They always say that: Whenever evidence of cooling is found in the data, it somehow
magically becomes confirming proof of global warming, because cooling is “expected” in the forecasts. Of course, whenever localized warming trends are found, those too are cited as evidence of global warming.

Which leads me to my Global Warming Spin Axiom:

Hot we win, cold you lose!
<

>
What’s most astounding is that Null, who claims to be a world-class expert on California meteorology, uncorked the whopper “if you have more warm days in the Central Valley, you are going to have a stronger sea breeze so you will cool off the coastal areas,” which as anyone who lives in Northern California knows is complete balderdash. Hot days in the Central Valley are generally caused by high-pressure systems settling over the area, which also cause off-shore (i.e. reverse of normal) winds and higher temperature at the coasts. Incoming low-pressure fronts cause cold temperatures at the coasts and cooling inland. To say that warm temperatures inland somehow induce cold and rain on the coast is wrong in more ways than I can count. And Jan Null knows that, so he must be purposely obfuscating to undermine the
conclusions of his own unfortunate study.

One thing I will say in Null’s favor, though: At least he released the stats he uncovered, rather than burying them once he realized that they undermined his favored thesis (as other researchers have done, we now know). But he would have been wiser to just release them and make no further comment, because every time a climatologist cites cooler temperatures as proof of global warming, another angel dies in heaven and another thousand Americans lose faith in the global warming mania.



There is no real consensus or scientific proof that human caused global warming exists. Humans causing climate change is only a THEORY! In other words these global alarmist cannot say with any degree of absolute confidence that humans are the cause of climate change.

Volcanoes are great examples of why attempts to control the climate are futile at best and mostly are folly.

Here's some news to consider.

That volcanic eruption in Iceland last year, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - everyones!!

Earlier this summer volcano Puyehue in Chile, started erupting on June 6, 2011. Ash clouds were as high as 5,000 meters and blanketed places 100 km away with volcanic ash.

When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire time on earth.

For the slow readers I will make the point of the above paragraph easier to understand' Mount Pinatubo, spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire time on earth.


Read more on clmite change at, Humans dwarf volcanoes for CO2 emissions, and here Scientists grow cool to global warming theory.

The Earth changes, every day. Without regard to our presence. We can make life unpleasant for ourselves or our neighbours.

No one wants to drink dirty water, breath polluted air or eat contaminated food.


Does anyone beside me find it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

Global Climate Alarmist just may have found a human-caused element slowing global warming.

Several recent studies point to China's growth or coal fueled power stations emitting enough dust to slow global warming. Or is that promoting global cooling, more at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/05/uk-climate-sulphur-idUSLNE76401W20110705idUSLNE76401W20110705

The climate change extremist do want one thing for sure.

Money!

Cap and Tax schemes are being launched by the EU and the Obama administration is salivating at the revenue that would come in to pay for all types of social programs, at the expense of crippling an already struggling economy.


Does anyone think that the tax one pays is to low? How much more can you afford to pay for a threat that cannot be proven to exist?

SCAM, is the term that describes the massinve social engineering climate alarmist are attempting to force upon the world.

Share your thoughts on climate change. I look forward to your pellucid responses.

10 comments:

ian said...

David, the link you provided on emissions from volcanoes actually has the total opposite conclusion ie humans emit WAY more CO2 than volcanoes! I was abit surpised to read that statement on Pinatubo. And although there can never be 'absolute' confidence, there IS a scientific consensus that global warming is mainly attributable to humans.

David said...

Ian,

In an attempt to be fair and balanced one link goes to the opposite view as you stated. The other link goes to a story that tells us some climate experts are looking the possibility of global cooling.

The idea that there IS a scientific consensus blaming climate change on humankind is itself a piece of fiction, or should I use the term propaganda!

David

ian said...

Doesn't the IPCC represent scientific consensus? By consensus I mean the majority, not unanimous agreement, which will never be possible.

Where is the reference that Pinatubo emitted more than anthropogenic sources?

David said...

Ian, the IPCC report that is touted as the science communities consensus was a sham. Many of the signees agreed with the preliminary IPCC report, but the full report digressed sharply from the preliminary report.

Scandals regarding poorly reviewed research, conflict of interest regarding some of the IPCC boards researchers data gathering techniques have placed the premise of the IPCCs report in a bad light.

The report totally ignored NASA satellite data that supports a cooler climate during the last 10 years.

IPCC comments such as "...“Close to 80% of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies, a new report shows,” it claims. In fact, the report merely discusses the assumptions needed to produce this outcome, one of the more extreme scenarios the IPCC looked at.


Forbes has a provactive report here:

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/07/05/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-ii/

The idea of any consensus is fiction.

Unless you are Al Gore.

David

ian said...

David,

1) It is a FACT that humans are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rapidly.

2) It is also a FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that raises air temperature by trapping solar radiation. Make the connection between 1) and 2).

3) It is true that dust particles from volcanic eruptions or human caused pollution reflect sunlight and may cool the air.

However 3) is random or at least minor in the case of industrial soot. To believe that we should not be bothered to control emissions because natural disasters could negate such efforts at any instance is quite irresponsible. I also take it that your statement on Pinatubo is false since you have not provided your reference. It is therefore also propaganda and misleading.

David said...

Ian,

Being fair and balanced one must keep an open mind. I provided links to sites with opposite POV.

I will trust that you can do some due diligence in investigating both sides on this important issue.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/182300/20110718/indonesia-volcano-eruption-volcano-indonesia-mount-lokon-eruption-mount-lokon.htm

For more on yet another volcanic eruption.

David

ian said...

David,

Thanks for sharing that link on Lokon, it does contain some spectacular images. But hard to see any scientific content pertaining to our discussion.

How about providing that link to your statement on Pinatubo, I am asking for the umpteenth time?

And here's my link providing evidence from a neutral non profit on global warming trend:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/opinion/20cullen.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
Since you're American, the article should be even more interesting.

ian

David said...

Ian,

The New York Times is not a neutral or partial party when it comes to reporting on climate change.

The Times is totally in the pocket of climate change advocates who want everyone control the way each and everyone lives.

The following links are good resources:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594033730/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271759263&sr=1-4

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N2/C5.php

Douglass, D.H. and Knox, R.S. 2005. Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Geophysical Research Letters 32: 10.1029/2004GL022119.

D.H. Douglass study has all the details.

Enjoy.

David

red_kitty_29 said...

David,

i live in Singapore and i feel the weather each year is getting hotter.. does this explain why?

David said...

red_kitty,

You state you feel that SG is getting warmer each year.

Have you found evidence say over a 10 or 20 year period that such is occuring. SG is like most large cities. As SG builds more and larger structures these same building add the heat island effect.

Learn about Heat island effect here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/urban-heat-island.htm, and also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8xcSwrvhY

A NASA, (National Aeronautic and Space Agency, U.S.A) has research that explains how atmospheric aerosols lead to cooler temperatures.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html

This may not answer your specific question. I am sure that some SG agency tracks the local climate history.

David