As you can see by the straight line of this graph, the average temperatures around the globe never change year after year until very recently.
Oh wait… That’s the flat center line and the estimated future rise at the end.
Found by Mr. Kevin
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 4222 access attempts in the last 7 days.
>> If you look very carefully at the graph, you will find that the baseline of the graph is 57˚F (label on the far right) and there was a point labeled 58˚F for now. They are reporting huge shifts of average global temperature which vary at most a couple tenths of degrees from year to year. The absence of normal variations that one sees in temperature charts indicates that the data must have been made up. Regarding “nomanic times”, the Scythians are known as “nomanic invaders” but this is a esoteric word used mostly by historians referring to an obscure Iran-Afghan race. Perhaps it was a misspelling for “nomadic” and a period when the ancient Hebrews were nomadic. This also is consistent with a mostly biblical time line of the earth. The source of the data for the graph is unclear. Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website http://longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a meteorologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be.
http://tinyurl.com/23rye2f
I thought this chart looked those “Dispensationalist Truth” charts the fundamentalists use to prove that Adam walked with the dinosaurs in 6000BC.
http://tinyurl.com/44o5l6a
I’ll get my science from real scientists, thank you.
Better graph of actual temperature data over last 10000 years from the single source, peer reviewed and published (see note on the image):
http://nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u3177/easterbrook_fig5.png
Hence, “smoothing” on your example is needless but helps ordinary people grasp the facts. Most important facts – that it have been way warmer in historical past and that we are warming up after extreme cold, not after some “universal average”.
I’m with Greg: the chart is gibberish as the vertical axis is unlabeled and has no proportionate scale. It for people who can’t think past the colors used.
Meanwhile, the ocean keeps rising. Why is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Goes right along with birthers and truthers though. Nice triple play.
I know Andrew Greeley’s utopian project in the Poconos, failed because its first summer’s crops failed due to Pinatubo’s eruption on the other side of the world.
It is known as the year without a summer.
The town of Greeley, PA is still there.
The x axis is the date. I got that, so having the same information on the curves is redundant.
The y axis is unlabeled.
You couldn’t get Microsoft Chart to put out something this crappy.
Start over.
Just because the climate changers are a bunch of lying a holes and have cried wolf one too many times doesn’t mean that I think it’s a good idea to let you shit in my fishbowl. But of course now that they’ve cried wolf for so long… I get ignored. fuck everybody
Breetai—when did the IPCC lie? Or are YOU lying by lumping any and all climate changers together as if they were all the same? Is that what you are doing boopsie?
Uh… this has already been on DU once.
http://dvorak.org/blog/2009/12/11/pay-no-attention-to-this-global-temperature-trends-since-2500-b-c/
Posted no less by the great and mysterious by John C Dvorak.
I’m just happy sane people are still in charge of doing something about this problem.
For a minute there, it seemed the loon plan of praying our way out was at the forefront.
Y-axis unlabeled
X-axis suddenly changes scale at the end
This is chapter 6 in the book “How to Damage Your Own Cause.”
Yea, that’s why the possibility of natural climate change should be the base case, and the scientists have to establish that this is not the case. Pretty hard to do with such a small amount of recent warming. Instead they put out a theory of catastrophic high warming caused by CO2 and say prove me wrong.
>Breetai—when did the IPCC lie?
Himalayan glaciers. IPCC head Pachauri was even involved in that.
Then there is IPCC vs Roger Pielke Jr, who still can’t get a correction out of them even though he’s been pointing out their errors in the 3rd report, and they just repeated then in the 4th report. Pielke points out how the peer-reviewed studies show no increase in hurricanes or damages from global warming, but the IPCC reports something else.
Breetal mentions crying wolf too many times, and he’s right. Anyone remember the icebergs breaking off in Antarctica?
Mike always for the Midget side of the argument==how would you predict the climate 100 years from now to establish the natural climate change?
Yea, thats right. How much carbon do you load into the model? You got yourself quite a little definitional conundrum don’t you?
Well, I’ll let you work on that for a while. Meanwhile–the ocean is constantly rising:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
The climate scientists are still hiding the decline.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/25/cru-refuses-foi-request-for-yamal-climategate-chronology/
Why should we listen to a bunch of Luddite anti-technology fear mongers? The Earth has been around for a long time. Humans are not powerful enough to destroy the Earth.
A bad graph.
Climate consensus form Wikipedia? hmm…likely.
i take my half truths from experience, data, common sense, and intuition. not from people riding the gravy train of fear-mongering anti-humanist depopulationists.
But while we are referencing wikipedia, see this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nias
this island (and presumably lots more around the plate) are SINKING, the sea level is not rising, land also sinks.
this in also interesting: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/02/tuvalu-and-many-other-south-pacific-islands-are-not-sinking-claims-they-are-due-to-global-warming-driven-sea-level-rise-are-opportunistic/
all in all i still hold firmly that it as a tax and grab bullshite play to force us into greater economic slavery while guilting us to death over saving the planet, the humans need saving not the planet, its does just fine without us.
in either case, more co2 and bit more warmth would do wonders for our growing seasons, could we not turn these excess heat into energy to combat the global bullshit? seems like a win win catch 22 situation, hahah.
“plough my field biatch, with your mouth.” is what i will say to GuLiar Gizzard” if she brings the guilt/sin tax in over here.
.. That and stealing flowers/hubcaps from government buildings and parks to pay for my carbon sins.
long live the elites, Green is the New Red.
“Control, conform and be co-opted, just don’t think or you may be labeled a terrorist.”
‘squirrel’
ITM
Hmm, I seem to be having problems locating the 58F for the “now” temperature. In fact, I can only find three temperature references on the graph: 57F normal, 58.3F for 1998, and 54.3F? for 1607. Now just eyeballing it, it looks like the 1607 and 1998 temperatures are drawn to scale with a 57F baseline.
GregAllen, where is this mysterious 58F for “now” located?
And what exactly is your bitch about the graph in general? Are you saying that the data is a lie? That the trends shown were fabricated? This is the stuff they taught in schools before “Global Warming” revisionists decided to rewrite climate history. Are you saying today’s climatologists are somehow smarter than the scientists from fifty years ago?
Well, gee. It’s on a graph, so it must be right.
Never trust any “scientific” document not using the metric system
#15 nothing to work on as your post is incomprehensible. What model is carbon being loaded into? Who is predicting what?
Mike–if you are going to predict the weather/climate 100 years from now, how much carbon do you model in for the atmosphere?
Habitat destruction and species extinction are obvious problems we should care about right. Or human trafficking (2 million women per year).
The climate change story will play itself out (one way or another) over the next 50-100 years before humans will actually respond in a meaningful way. We also just need to wait for a bunch of white, Christian baby boomer Americans to die before this can actually be debated. Just ask Bill Nye.
Anyone who claims sea level is going up everywhere is full of crap. The Pacific coral islands that are supposed to be sinking aren’t.
People doing publicly funded research that try to hide their raw data are full of crap. You don’t need to go any farther. You cut off their funding or you name is chump sucker dullard.
People who make climate forecasts for the next 100 years who can’t get it right for 10 years or even six months are not credible.
If you offer people large sums of money to predict disaster somebody is going to take it. If you continue to reward them for doing so even when it is obvious that they are doing very poor science they will happily continue to tell you lies and take the money.
The climate changes that have occurred over the last 100 years are not remarkable when compared to events that we know have occurred in the past.
It is not clear that the trivial increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that has occurred has actually had any detectable impact on climate. To many other factors that seem to be much more powerful are in play and we can’t control for them.
Climatologist who are man made global warming fans have stated that implementing Cap and Trade in the US could be expected to have no detectable impact on climate. On the other hand massive increases in energy costs will occur.
I would be interested in knowing if the same people that purchase homeopathic medicines also are man made global warming fans.
8, Bobbo,
According to an IPCC lead author they have at least been intellectually dishonest: “Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I’m identified as an IPCC Lead Author.)
The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: “We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans.”
We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don’t have thermometers marked with “this much is human-caused” and “this much is natural”.
So, I would have written this conclusion as “Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change.””
http://tinyurl.com/2lb4sn
24, Bobbo,
Use the trend line of quantified human CO2 output of the last 30 or so years to make future predictions.
Afterall, isn’t human CO2 output the root cause of global warming? If you know the cause and you can quantify its output, the rest should be easy.
Otherwise it’s much ado about nothing.
26, deowll,
I’m not an alarmist nor am I convinced any of what the alarmists are screaming about is truly man-made.
That said, I do prefer natural remedies before I may be forced to take something else. Western medicine seems more preoccupied with symptoms rather than root causes.
The same can be said of the alarmists.
I’ll be a lot more impressed with “climate science” when the Weather Channel can accurately predict the weather in a given place for more than a week in advance. As it is now, they can’t even get it right for more than a day or two.
So a cooling trend started when we went from BC to AD. Maybe this global climate disruption issue is just calendar-math error.