Sunday, 27 July 2014

Exposing the true man made global warming

NB I will be refining this as I go along, as it has been pointed out there are variations in the presentations as well as the data in some of these graphs, and due to the volume and quality available means some are not always completely compatible with others. But the ones comparing the same period by the IPCC, and the three superimposed alone are sufficient to make my point, and the others are only variations on that theme. I will remove this message when I have refined the available material.

In my travels I have found at least three holocene temperature records. Bearing in mind we only started using land based thermometers in 1850 or so the previous proxy data could be uncertain, but the actual result of three graphs showing what look like different universes not just different versions of the same material shows how truly tenuous climate history and science is. Of course at best only one of these graphs is correct, but how on earth are we meant to know which one, and why? And if the others are wrong why are they there and relied upon by those using them? Bear in mind some of these cover longer or shorter periods, but when you compare the standard 12,000 period with the same one on the others there is still little agreement.



Marcott anomaly/change

Taking the first two, ignore the earlier part on the top one as it's for an extra 8000 years, and look at the remaining 12000. On the surface they do look similar, but firstly the top one has also used a log scale for the x (horizontal) axis, meaning it is compressed on the left. Allowing for that we still see the recent part to the present has risen above the entire range of the past, while the one below using a normal linear spread shows the temperature falling since the medieval warm peropd almost 8000 years ago. It does however show us only reaching it in around the late 20th century, while others usually do not. But they are strikingly different, as the lower one (despite having no Y axis to compare temperatures) clearly shows were are still well below the Minoan warm period and definitely at an extremely ordinary temperature level regardless. The third echoes the second but has been turned around as many do with the present on the left. You can see the crucial present point, that which world policy depends on totally, is either completely normal or fairly high (2C would be high, 4C very high, according to the IPCC).

Now going forward to the fourth, note that it pretty well echoes the second, both in using the same period, and the same shape, all until the end. Now why would one show a marked extreme spike at the end, while the other stops exactly where it was? Don't ask me, I'm only an observer who has trawled the internet and found a set of conflicting information. The lower graph shows the same period in detail, but then when you look at the ones below that, you have three for the same period superimposed and then another two compared, both showing totally different readings. How can that happen and which are we supposed to rely on, considering they are used to make world climate policy, which would never even exist had they used the ones without the spike, as there would be absolutely no requirement for any.
Furthermore, the one  here which Michael Mann used and was selected to drive the entire UN agenda since (despite other less dramatic ones were also offered), before he created it the UN actually used the earlier one showing present temperatures at about half way, with three earlier warm periods described as 'optimums', expressing the fact (due to many written and measured records) life overall was far better with a higher average temperature. It corresponds with the same period for the first one. Now his graph only goes back a couple of thousand years, but easily long enough to see the absence of either the MWP or basically any temperature variations at all. Luckily someone extended Mann's graph (using the anomaly) back to the earlier point, and although it included the part we all know as it had to, the greater context, even though the MWP was still flattened to nothing the other warm periods put today's little spike (even using Mann's erect maximum version) it shows besides the very latest point there was nothing unusual about the current temperature. Enthusiasts will tell you it's also the rate of warming that's as significant, but then, firstly all the diagrams don't have it, and secondly how do they explain the cause earlier warming periods?

Note, these are not even similar. Imagine an engineer or a doctor providing three such different graphs for a bridge weight load or patient's vital signs? Firstly you'd assume they weren't actually qualified, secondly you certainly wouldn't employ them, and thirdly they may well quite rightly be stripped of their qualifications. So why aren't the climatologists as well? They have caused as much pain and suffering as any other providing utter drivel to the governments of the world who then use it to punish the useless eaters, the emitters who clearly are viewed as nothing more than cattle farting and belching en masse and needing severe regulation to protect the world from this herd of stinking humanity. And when you see the basis of their rules and taxes you have to realise they are built on shifting sands of a combination of major uncertainty and probable fabrication. If one of these graphs is right, how would anyone actually know which one, and why have all the governments chosen the one which suits their existing plans?

Now this one is interesting, although I have also seen another one showing the past not being lower than the present for its peaks (which follows the pattern for the holocene), as we are only looking at the last 12,000 years for this presentation, firstly of course it has no hockey stick, and the long plateau we are supposedly now right in the mid range of is part of one which began about 8000 years ago, and was clearly driven by everything except man made CO2. The sharp rise previously, from a long period of far colder temperatures, was clearly natural, and even if you add the recent uptick to this one it isn't the sort of sharp rise we've had many times in the past, and all clearly part of totally normal and natural variations. The large numbers of temperature graphs which show both the medieval warm period as higher than today, which you could say was the 'consensus' before the 21st century, and recent enough to know unlike the imagined climate refugees the world was overall a far better place, and most show the two earlier periods as even higher, and again no problems reported. Then Mann comes along and irons the whole thing out,

In the end a science which is capable of producing data so varied supposedly covering the identical period is clearly unable to perform and deliver at a level required for reliability and trust, and as such is no more a science than betting tipsters.


  1. I am not sure of your point. Are you expecting graphs on different time scales to look the same. Unclear if that is what you are saying or not.

  2. I'll add some more and pair them up to get rid of that issue. But the two at the bottom have already overlapped different graphs for the same period, you'd think they came from different planets.