Last update : Saturday, 03 January 2009
|
View Site Statistics
|
Sign the visitor guest book: |
Daily
global warming (GW) evolution charts
Introduction.
To impress your audience, the use of flashy charts is crucial. Not only
does it show what you want to prove in an attractive and eye catching manner,
it also camouflages the data, your biased filtering and manipulation. Nobody is
interested in staring at a list of raw data as it is and if requested, there is
always a perfectly logical explanation for filtering out ‘unclean’ data, read
unfit to reach the desired conclusion.
Oh yes,
Earth’s climate is turning up the thermostat a tad. Whether CO2
influences the temperature or vice versa, it’s the sun that
does the trick and/or your neighbor’s contribution is no more than
peeing in a flooding river even when he switches off all his LED’s and wears an
extra pullover. The debate about this looming extinction predicament of The
Human Kind has taken a wider path than the next Nostradamus
review in line. The folly it has taken is already documented by the vast amount
of opportunistic proves, disproves and solutions illustrated in the publications
overview 2006-2007
If someone
walked up to you tomorrow and claimed that “The universe is changing and we’re all doomed if we
don’t act now!”, a raised eyebrow would be the least to expect from any common
sensed being. Scientomological (still to be invented
by H. Simpson), creationism revisited it is. The similarities in believe or
reasoning and the faulty premise are the same. Claiming the that life was
Dei-created at some vague moment in time and subsequent changes, give or take a
Dei-flood or two –one for each continent-, are mere micro adjustments; is the
same as hollering that The Climate is actually changing, compared to any other
convenient era, and it’s all due to the late Human CO2 production.
Despite
the exploitation of the phenomenon for political, commercial, medical, social,
technological, religious, environmental and sometimes absurdly scientific; all
complacent bravery is just that and wastes time in claiming to close a tap
instead of saving the furniture.
Living in
most industrialized nations a little warming up wouldn’t change much for the
worst, give or take not skiing in your backyard, saving for air condition or
for the lack of that opening your fridge regularly, or being in the heat
wave-death risk factor statistics. In the worst-case scenario, some coastal
flooding precautions, or indeed a little inland migration and re-designing your
garden to welcome sub-tropical fauna and flora or discourage same pests should
suffice. Too bad if you “were” subtropical, next you’ll be Sahara material but
a bit of leftover oil deposits can do wonders provide you accept some degree of
oil-sniffing global occupation and imposed fallacy of freedom and democracy.
A valuable
and already pursued initiative would be to use the otherwise worthless desert
land to invest in decent sunlight energy capture, smartly taking into account
impact on the natural habitat of whatever dwells there naturally. Some degree
of wiring up to less Saharan but energy needy area’s
is just a replacement of the current gas/oil pipelines.
Which brings us to the real
challenge.
1972:
The Club of Rome's report predicts we will run out of oil 15 years ago today,
with some emphasis on the demographic factor in the equation. Compared to 1972
(3.860 billion), there are a few
more humans -and their needed prey and unneeded pets- around: 6.6 billion plus
same for pigs, cows, cats or dogs. In that respect the
proverbial “hockey stick” argument is a very true one. Put the human population
hockey stick next to the temperature one and the correlation is just as
convincing. It’s the same logic that would prove that LED or AirCo production causes global warming, or that local dung
fly demographics causes manure increase.
It wouldn't surprise
any common sense that all this non-photosynthetic live
hood increases CO2 output but this addresses co-factors or
consequences and not the causes. A campaign to wind down on procreating is
considerably less popular than advising to turn down the heating or switch off
one's computer LED's. Imagine the rebuttal to "Save the planet for our
(grand)children" would be "Stop making so
many (grand)children " ... political suicide.
Instead, "Restrict
oil consumption and save a Polar bear" suits both industrial and
environmental parties, the first to buy some time and the last to have a noble
Cause.
Absurdity.
Without a doubt, the
worst way to combat absurd science is to apply equally illogical principles and
be faced with common sense rebuttal in the process. In comparison to the lost
creationist battle against natural evolution of bio organisms, the same mistake
of disproving new style anthropomorphic omphaloskepsis by scientific arguments need not be made. True
scientists are usually raised to be prudent, often in view of their possible
career. In view of that, and excluding opportunists and frauds, the temperature
records relating to Global Warming are usually compared to historic data. One
somewhat National Geographic dramaturgic style prevails in the discussion
though: it is all happening within our species lifetime, in less than a couple
of decades even. Apparently ignoring (=a bad premise) that a planet has shown
mechanisms to deal with temperature fluctuations in its history and condemned
to cool to a dead rock even though warmed by a sufficiently nearby sun, the
mere surge of our own species will cause our extinction. The infamous Dinosaurs
didn’t cause their own, albeit having evolved out of survivable ranges and with
simply more adaptable creatures around to take over neglected niches. Perhaps
even more disturbing than a common chimp ancestor, this notion of being
controlled by common planetary household wimps seems unacceptable. Whether H.
sapiens caused it or not, surely it can control it. After all, it didn’t evolve
last era’s second or did it?
One just has to observe
the pandemic hysteria from a slightly beyond the 10% continental surface of
Earth to know that this folly is not about temperature changes. Every crisis
has its culprit. Take your own pick with a profitable edge from the sun, cloud
cover, methane, volcanoes and... CO2, a harmless but beneficial gas
to plants and our own metabolism, probably the most buffered and subject to
various self-regulating mechanisms amongst others and the choice is obvious.
Humans “produce” it while exploiting their evolutionary progress from
historical bio fuel supplies.
If I was attending to
my future profits, I’d make sure all this precious bio fuel wouldn’t get wasted
on warming people’s butts, what a waste that is. Invest in isolation, energy
saving and curb a few baloney CO2 consumers like cheap flights and
to-be-replaced cars. More spending to serve a new economic
niche.
Those who want to save
the world have made a critical error in their haste to convince the masses. Burning
all the historic bio fuel of our planet and giving the human species a serious help
in industrial and scientific development would raise the CO2 level. A
dead brainer really.
The problem with that preserved
legacy is that it is a limited supply of goodies and baddies. Therefore a notable
warming climate, together with the imprinted conviction that the rest of
humanity is ruining the planet for their children (half of whom should not have
been procreated in the first place), the simple logic of burn=warming and a
greenhouse effect has led to that error. The problem with choosing Global “Warming”
as the doom scenario is that it can easily backfire if the temperature curve
goes down. Say when the sun has its periodical sunspot dip.
What in the name of “Save
The Planet” are we supposed to do then? Burn as much
fossil fuel as possible, or at least what is left over?
Melt the North Pole ice?
A more foolproof idea
had been to call the scam “Climate Change” but that would not have hit any headline
because that is common knowledge to the Squirt and the like.
Desperately wrong conclusions
-
Merely
6 months observation gap and the temperature drops by 5°C (Aug 2007 – Jan 2008)
-
Global
temperature is increasing again.
-
Global
temperature has declined by more less than 5 °C since the start of
observations.
-
Global
Warming efforts show an adverse effect.
-
It’s
summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
-
Seasonal
variation affects the availability of Southern Hemisphere observations.
-
Trend
line shows Global Cooling
-
The
‘hockey stick’ theory is bended
-
“days
ago” is really “observations ago
-
The trend line just follows the seasonal variability
-
The worst, ten observations ago, is over.
Desperately wrong conclusions
-
Merely
6 months observation gap and the global pressure drops by 6 mmHg (Aug 2007 –
Jan 2008)
-
Global
Warming climate change increases the occurrence of high-pressure systems.
-
Friday
the 13th (1005,074025974030000
Hpa): need I say more?
-
Global
warming decreases the occurrence of cyclones.
-
Trend
line shows increasing Global Pressure
-
Proof
of reversed ‘hockey stick’ theory
-
Global
pressure trend is the reverse of the temperature
-
Earth’s
atmosphere is depressurizing
Desperately wrong conclusions
-
Merely
6 months observation gap and we loose 3 % humidity (Aug 2007 – Jan 2008)
-
Global
Warming doesn’t affect humidity of the atmosphere.
-
Atmospheric
humidity changes, if any, don’t cause Global Warming, it’s CO2 that
does it.
-
Warming
or not, it will always rain at the wrong time and place.
Desperately wrong conclusions
-
Merely
6 months observation observation gap but the wind
stays stable (Aug 2007 – Jan 2008)
-
The
erratic effects of Global Warming on wind velocity are rapidly increasing.
-
Based
on historical data, global wind velocity shows a mysterious decline during the
last month.
-
Based
on historical data, global wind velocity shows a mysterious recovery towards
normal values.
-
The
recent variability of historical average is due to statistical manipulation.
-
Trend:
It’s getting windier but where are the hurricanes?
Source: KMI
Number
of visitors to date: