What’s Driving Current Temperatures?

It’s not carbon dioxide. In fact, the current La Nina has been so powerful it’s dropped temperatures around the planet. And in 1998 a persistent and powerful El Nino sent global temperatures rising.

What’s important about this data is it shows that there are external forcing factors that come from the oceans and the sun which dwarf atmospheric heat-trapping contributions to the biosphere.

The IPCC deftly sidestepped these external pressures when condemning mankind for warming the planet.

If the El Nino trends drop off we can expect the temperatures on the planet to drop off again. In fact, El Nino is closely associated with ice ages. More frequent El Ninos disrupt ice fields and cause a warming of the planet. Less frequent El Ninos allow for the planet to cool.

What’s clear from data on El Nino and La Nina is that there have been more El Ninos and less La Nina’s in a period from 1978 to 1998. Temperatures have seemed to level off, and possibly even drop– something that correlates well with only 1 El Nino year between 2008 and 1998 and 3 La Nina years, the current La Nina being a very strong cooling event. The global temperatures exhibit correlation with El Nino and La Nina events. If you look at the period from 1950 to present as far as heating goes, you can see the world gets warmer when there are a greater number of El Ninos to La Ninas, and when there are greater La Ninas, the temperautre trend reverses.

I’m not going to stake my academic career on 50 years of data (it would be great if we could see La Nina and El Nino charts going back 100 years and see if the temperatures in the 30’s were the result of El Nino events as well). But I find it very interesting that La Nina and El Nino events track very well with current global temperatures– and they have little to do with greenhouse warming from CO2.

El Nino and La Nina are not greatly understood by the scientific community. We know when they appear and generally why, but we’re not exactly sure what causes the formation of the events that start El Nino (which is a relaxation or increase in the trade winds).

Global Warming Roundup

From news hits in the past day:

Global Warming may have to take a backseat to global economic concerns.   Why? The dirty little secret of the CO2 police is that measures to curb CO2 pollution have an impact on the economies of the countries doing the curbing.  Instituting CO2 control measures is costly and doesn’t return much on the investment (other than SAVING THE PLANET!).  So not many people are happily trotting the AGW line when their livelihood is at stake.

The global increase in temperatures is threatening the King Penguin.  Just like any climae change cycle, populations live and die based upon their current climate and if they can adapt to newer climates.  It’s called “evolution”, and it’s a response to pressure.  Odd that the radical environmentalists want people to stop the evolution of species.  I thought we weren’t supposed to meddle in the affairs of nature?  Oh, except for causing “global warming”.  Riiight.

Global Warming Strikes South Korea!  Millions save money on heating costs!  Remember, localized warming is proof of global warming, but global cooling is not proof of global cooling.  And localized cooler temperatures?  Yeah, let’s not even go there.  Allegorical evidence is fine if you support the AGW hypothesis, but very very bad if you’re an opponent of the AGW hypothesis.

What Global Warming means for Africa, from a biased point of view.  When the world warmed up in the past, it must have wiped all life out on the African continent, because increased rain made the soil less fertile and the increased temperature and rainfall caused more droughts and desertification.  Go ahead and read it, and wonder in amazement that the African continent isn’t one big charred, dry husk.

Finally, we have an OK article about Global Warming Skepticism over at Merinews.  The author leans on active volcanism to suggest that CO2 from volcanic sources is a major source of CO2 in the atmosphere (and would explain isotopic differences, but volcanic eruptions do not explain the progressive increase of CO2, and some of that would be man-made).  Remember that CO2 takes 10-110 years to remove from the atmosphere, so any non-biocyclical influence would force an increase, something CO2 from man-made sources and volcanoes causes.

Probably the biggest kudos I can say to that argument is rapping the knuckles of the “deniers”, those who think Global Warming isn’t happening.  The overall temperature of the earth has gone up nearly 1 degree C, so yes, it’s warming.  The argument is the source of the heating, and there’s plenty of reasons to think the major component is not greenhouse gas.  But guilt seems to push us that direction…

Democrats Abandoning Democracy

It seems the party elders have had enough of this “primary” business. Half of the Democrats want Obama, another half want Hillary, and it doesn’t like anyone is going to secure the delegates needed, by the convention. So will the Superdelegates side with Hillary out of loyalty to the Clinton way? Will they side with Obama and the majority of the party’s delegates?

Or will they say “Screw it!” and just nominate someone else altogether?

If neither Mr Obama nor Mrs Clinton has the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination, and if both appear unable to beat Mr McCain, under one scenario a group of about 100 party elders - the “super-delegates” - could sit out the first ballot in Denver, preventing either candidate winning outright, and then offer Mr Gore the nomination for the good of the party.

Tim Mahoney, a Democrat congressman from Florida, said last week: “If it goes into the convention, don’t be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket.” This suggests the party would accept a Gore-Clinton or a Gore-Obama pairing.

So let me get this straight. Instead of throwing their support behind the first woman presidential nominee or the first black presidential nominee, they’re going to throw their support behind a white male! One who wasn’t even on the ballot!
All for the good of the party, of course. So how about we request a name change from “Demo”crats to “Oliga”crats to represent that yes, the party is actually run and controlled by a very small group of power brokers?

But I’m looking forward to seeing President Gore. I can’t wait until roving gangs of environmentalists are peeking in my window, making sure I’m using compact fluorescent bulbs, composting my garbage, and running my TV with a hand-crank.

We Didn’t Land on the Moon

I’m a Moon Landing Denialist.  And a Nazi.  To some, it’s because I look like one (and they would be stereotyping nimwits).  But it’s Al Gore who’s calling me out on it.  He’s comparing those who challenge Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) to those who think in conspiracies.

I find the connection hilarious.  Al Gore, who’s fat like me (but I look like a conservative), said on the upcoming broadcast of 60 Minutes that everyone believes in Global Warming is a small minority.  He’s saying this at the same time the computer models are failing and the temperature of the earth is plummeting.  Evidently, if everyone believes it, there’s no reason to make AGW films, or do a press tour on 60 Minutes, or buy ad time condemning you for being so wasteful.  Hey, we’re all on board, right?  Oh, except those of us who have problems with the “perponderance” of scientific evidence and the “consensus” of the IPCC (and all 5 of the climate scientists who signed amongst their hundreds of members).

It’s funny that the Left is so concerned with labeling people who don’t agree with them.  AGW nazis or denialists.  Fat conservatives.  White male misogynists.  Of course, I don’t resort to such stereotyping because it’s illogical– appearance doesn’t make the person.  But the Left seems to think so, and is happy to label people left and right, although you try and label them and all hell breaks loose.

How about you interview me, Leslie Stahl?  I’ll tell you all about the problems with the AGW theories.  I’ll debate Al Gore on the show.  And I’ll do it from the set of the Moon Landing.

It’s been a while

Sorry for the lack of posting. A combo of computer issues and work issues have monopolized my time. That and a complete lack of anything to say. Seriously. Barack Obama and Hillary have dominated the news cycle, and people’s heads are exploding left and right. I think Obama’s got the nomination in the bag, but then the bag was shaken violently with the “revelation” that his pastor is a Grade A Jackass.

Hillary? Worst campaign in history, but she could win this thing if Obama implodes. And if there’s anything we know about the Democrats, they’re experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

In the meantime, I saw this post and had to link to it. Read the whole thing and understand why so many scientists (not PhD’s in Music) are skeptical of Global Warming. It’s what I’ve been saying for years, and now the DATA is coming through– that models, regardless of just how cool the computers are, can’t reliably be used to predict the destruction of the planet by greenhouse gases.

Edit:  ha!  Beat Hot Air to the punch.  N00B$!

Maybe the Sun DOES Have Something to Do With It

Looks like sunspot activity is hitting dangerous lows.

I’m not going to start shouting “Ice Age!  Ice Age!” After all, if you look at the record from 1600 to 2000, you see a lovely oscillating record of sunspot data.  And you can find more sunspot data here, which I refuse to compile on general principle (if I barely have time to post, I’m not going through 140 years of sunspot data to discover very little).

The low sunspot count is interesting, but given the fabulous outpouring of activity from our stellar neighbor over the past 10 years, I think it deserves a well-earned break.  Now, if it doesn’t pick up over the next 10 years– then I’ll be worried.  Very worried.  Hey, I live in Wisconsin!

Al Gore Is Watching You

Is it any wonder that Bono needs to ‘confess’ to Father Al?

Don’t Talk to Me About Global Warming– I’m Freezing My Buns Off

Seems that the world is in the grips of record low temperatures, both in the northern and southern hemispheres.

It’s interesting given a UK report that the world is warmer than it’s ever been. Truth is, the “rapid warming” of the planet has somewhat tapered off, and we’re not experiencing warming or cooling. Is it possible we reached the peak of a warm period and we’re slowly declining back to cooler temperatures?

Not according to computer models. Here’s the problem with computer models– they’re designed by people and they need to include variables from thousands of different sources to provide a projection. Rather than program something that will account for all the different variables, they make assumptions and, one of the biggest assumptions they make, is that external thermal input (aka, the sun) will remain constant throughout the lifespan of the simulation. That’s a huge assumption given that the sun provides nearly all of the radiative energy for the surface of our planet.

Let me put it in analogy format. It’s June 15th, and I want to create a computer model that can tell me what days in the summer I’ll be able to go to the beach and get tan. I’ll start the temperature increases from March 22 (first day of Spring) and plot temperature in the area from March 22 to June 15th and estimate temperatures through August 30th based upon the temperature increases through that period. I’ll also need variables on work days, people at the beach, supply of suntan oil, how often my friends will go to the beach, the daily temperature, solar output, the cloud cover, and chance of precipitation.

Now, the first four variables are easy to program. When we get to the second, we’ll use historical extrapolation from June 15th through March 22, and plot daily average temperatures from the temperature increase plot (according to that projection, it should be a balmy 115 F on August 30th!). Now, solar output has been relatively constant, on average, for 4.5 billion years, so we’ll make the assumption that the solar output is invariable. Additionally, cloud cover is hopelessly hard to predict, so we’ll assume it’s minor and toss it out. And precipitation? We’ll guess it rains 4 times every 30 days, adn plot accordingly.

There. Now I have my model of the future of this year in sunbathing. Will it work out? As everything we’ve done relies on averaging, the general map of sunbathing may be generally accurate. However, there are many assumptions that prove faulty.

The first and biggest is that solar output is constant. If you look at the sun, you’ll notice it’s a violent ball and erupting gas which bombards the solar system with particles, CME’s, and cosmic radiation. But for the models to work, they have to assume a constant sun, primarily because the sun’s activity is still largely a mystery to most people. We’re just now beginning to understand how the convection in the sun spawns the fusion process, and how hot and cold spots on the sun mess with the magnetic field. We know from observation there’s an 11-year activity cycle for the sun, and it’s tempting to say all the activity on the sun averages out over time. But each cycle is different. The current cycle we’re in is winding down, but the sun was incredibly active, hitting the Earth with a few whopper solar flares.

All of that solar activity could result in an increase in energy imparted to the planet, as well as a change in the solar wind, which, in turn, changes the overall impact of cosmic rays on cloud cover formation. Less cloud cover decreases solar reflectivity, which would increase the amount of energy striking the planet. That is another variable that’s assumed “constant”, mainly because clouds are so transient, they cannot truly be measured to give an “average”. Assigning any variable to cloud cover would be disingenuous as you’re making a total guess to cloud cover contributions, so the safe bet is to discard it.  Did you get that?  The safe bet is to totally toss a set of data that has a large contribution to the entire system!

So my model for sunbathing is relying on discarding one enormous set of information and ignoring the contribution of the biggest variable in the system!  So how well do you think my model is going to do simulating summer temperatures?  Sure, it’s going to be hot.  We know it’s going to be warm.  It’s summer, right?  And we know that it’s always hot in the summer.  Not a big guess about the temperatures.

As for climate modeling, people saying “it’s going to stay hot!” are the masters of the obvious.  The planet doesn’t change temperatures quickly.  It has built-in mechanisms to heat and cool slowly.  If the temperature is warm, odds are it will stay warm.  If the temperature is slowly increasing, it’s a safe bet to say it’s going  to still increase.  The key to the models is ignoring the one thing we know about planetary climate– it changes!  If the planet cools at all, even if it’s a 5-year dip followed by a rise– the climate models all fall apart!  Every model does not allow for a temperature correction!

So, if 2008-2012 show an overall decline in temperatures, the models will implode.  That’s the problem with predicting the future.  You may be wrong.

Just ask 400 scientists.

Global Warming is killing the Polar Bears!

Or, maybe it’s not.  Well, not yet at least.

Big Oil is Manipulating the Satellites

According to Christopher Booker’s Notebook, satellite data for 2007 shows a notable decline in global temperatures.  He doesn’t say where he gets this data, and I haven’t been able to find a corroborating sources just yet.  But if it’s true, we all know what that means.

Big Oil has taken over the satellites in the sky.

In all seriousness, I’m not going to take one year’s worth of data and say it’s a trend.  But one thing’s for sure– 1998 was one hot year.  But if you compare it to the years 1999-now, the temperatures haven’t been any hotter, which means 1998 may be an anomaly.  Or it could be that 2007 is an anomaly.

We’ll see what the trend looks like in 2012, which means we have another 5 years of Global Warming activism, at least.