A friend of mine sent me an unattributed graph and commented, “See! Global warming!”

Don’t you just love scary graphs that depict exaggerated global warming?

Especially those that…

- Cover large time spans with significant front-loaded error probabilities based on little more than temperature proxies?

- Report measurements as deviations from a modern, hand-picked “baseline” even though climate cycles may be thousands of years long?

There have been five or six major ice ages in the history of Earth over the past 3 billion years. The Late Cenozoic Ice Age began 34 million years ago, its latest phase being the Quaternary glaciation, in progress since 2.58 million years ago. Variations in Earth's orbit through time have changed the amount of solar radiation Earth receives in each season. Interglacial periods tend to happen during times of more intense summer solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere. These glacial–interglacial cycles have waxed and waned throughout the Quaternary Period (the past 2.6 million years). Since the middle Quaternary, glacial–interglacial cycles have had a frequency of about 100,000 years (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005). 

- Are scaled to depict relatively small changes in a scary fashion and do not reveal significant temporal events? I am not concerned about a 0.6 oC (1.08 oF) upward trend because it appears that slight warming is beneficial to much of the planet’s population, and an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is beneficial to plant life and oxygen and food production.

- Conflate and confuse the output of incomplete climate models and dodgy data with factual representations of the modeled phenomena.

As if plotting data on a graph represents scientific certainty. The only scientific fact is the climate appears to be continually changing ever since the Earth developed an atmosphere and oceans. It is assumed that the environment contains self-correcting feedback loops that favor plant and animal life. And that small changes in the global mean temperature have little meaning when you consider the significant temperature variations between the Equator and both polar regions.

Here is the graph…

2020-08-20 15_27_43-Greenshot

Reliable calculations appear to provide an upper bound of 1.5oC for a doubling of CO2. Remembering that the United Nation's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a political body, not a scientific one. 

Bottom line…

I am still waiting for a scientist to determine the Earth’s optimal temperature to sustain plant and animal life.

I am still waiting for a scientist to directly observe and measure man’s climate signal amid the noise of natural climate variability.

I am still waiting for a scientist to measure meaningful predictive information in a complex, chaotic, and turbulent system over global dimensions.

And the list goes on.

Sorry Bob, not convinced. But it does make cool abstract art.  viariability

And if you believe scientists, consider what they have done to the United States with their speculative model-driven nonsense.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS