Archives

October 2022
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Are global temperatures really rising?

weekend blog

(If you’ve read my book – THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS – there’s probably no need to read this weekend’s blog)

I’d like to start by using a chart I used a couple of days ago:

(left-click on image, then left-click again to see more clearly)

The chart shows global temperatures as measured by balloons and satellites from 1979 to 2015 compared to over 30 of the main models used by climatologists. Satellites started measuring global temperatures in the mid-1970s, so that’s probably why this chart starts at 1979.

Of course, given that the climate, weather and temperature change every single minute of every single day, you could question whether you can actually measure the temperature of a constantly-changing complex, dynamic system such as the Earth. But let’s assume that it is possible to measure the Earth’s temperature.

Hopefully you’ll notice a few things:

1. Massive overestimation

Firstly: All the models used by climatologists and politicians to decide climate policy hugely overestimate the level of warming. In fact, not a single model comes anywhere near what is actually happening.

2. Starting at a low point

Secondly, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Earth’s temperature fell so dramatically, that most climatologists predicted the Earth was entering a new Ice Age. Here’s the Guardian from the early 1970s:

Given that the 1960s and 1970s were unusually cold, it’s less than surprising that there has been some warming since then.

3. Minimal warming

There was about 0.1°C warming between 1979 and about 1982, then the temperature actually fell till around 1986. Between 1986 and 1995 there was a rise of about 0.3°C. Then from 1995 till 2002 temperatures fell in spite of ever-rising atmospheric CO2 levels. There was a rise again from 2002 to 2005. But that was followed by almost 10 years of cooling, while atmospheric CO2 kept increasing, till temperatures began rising again around 2014.

If constantly rising atmospheric CO2 levels were the main driver of global temperatures, then the alternating warming and cooling would not have been possible.

Moreover, during the whole 36 years covered by the chart, temperatures only increased by just over 0.3°C. If global temperatures were to continue increasing by around 0.3°C every 36 years, it would take 240 years for the Earth to reach the dreaded 2°C warming the climatologists and politicians have predicted would happen by the end of this century – in 78 years time. Yet the climate policies being forced on us by the Paris Agreement are based on preventing a 2°C warming by the end of this century.

Just look at the chart. The Paris Agreement’s 2°C warming was never going to happen anyway!

Different models, same mistake

All the main models will differ in level of complexity and in the weighting they give to the various phenomena which influence global temperatures. But they all make the same fundamental mistake – they all are based on the (IMHO erroneous) assumption that the main driver of global temperatures is the level of atmospheric CO2. So, as atmospheric CO2 rises, all the models predict rising temperatures.

And, of course, their useless models fail to explain why the scorching 1920s and 1930s, when atmospheric CO2 levels were around 320 ppm (parts per million) compared to about 415 ppm now, were so hot that ‘scientists’ back then predicted melting ice caps and massive flooding:

The whole catastrophic man-made climate change narrative now being pushed by the supposed ‘scientists’, the politicians and the mainstream media is utter and total nonsense.

3 comments to Are global temperatures really rising?

  • Ed P

    Yes, utter nonsense, as the ‘experts’ must know. But if not climate, they might come up with something worse with which to terrorize us. Oh, hang on, they have already…

  • A Thorpe

    The use of an average temperature is part of the lies over climate. An average temperature has no physical meaning but it is one bit of maths that most people think they understand. There is a temperature distribution and a statistical mean and standard deviation but not an average. Nobody would think of using the average temperature to size their central heating system, or think that it tells them anything about the weather on any day. It is an utterly meaningless number used for deception. It is also how alarmists explain the greenhouse effect because they fail to see the heating capability of the sun when the energy is averaged over the earth.

    I don’t know how the average is calculated from measured temperatures. We have air temperatures measured a metre or so above ground on land. I’m not aware of air temperatures being measured above the oceans, where they measure sea temperatures. There are satellite measurements which seem to be an average of some kind and they are proxy temperatures. Some clarity would help.

    Predictions from models have now been around for years and as the graph shows they are all wrong. Why do we have so many incorrect models? Shouldn’t the alarmists be working together to agree on a single model that is accurate? But other predictions have been made by Al Gore, Prince Charles and endless celebrities about vanishing ice that never come true. The masses cannot even see that they are being lied to at a basic level. When melting ice is discussed we see photos of ice bergs calving, These are from glaciers that are growing.

    Idiocracy has taken over the masses.

  • Nietzsche said that Christianity is a slave morality that was purposefully designed to destroy the Roman Empire by creating and evangelising a God whose Son made out that the children of God are the poor, the dispirited, the ill-constituted and the oppressed.
    The end result of turning Roman values upside down would be that the Romans would no longer be on the back of the Jews. To achieve that end, the new religion would have to be evangelised all over the Empire and beyond. Saint Paul took on that work himself.

    He realised in a vision on the road to Damascus that the Christ story could be used to destroy the patrician values and slave culture that the Empire was built on.

    At that time in Palestine, there were many Messiahs trying to become acknowledged as the great leader who would bring the Jews a prophesied military victory over the Romans. Saint Paul probably saw that a military victory was impossible and that only turning Roman values on their head was the answer.

    It still is the way in which the weak, oppressed, ill-constituted, the physiologically-exhausted and low life, who are always the majority, instinctively use to unite and bring down their natural masters. – The aim being to undermine and corrupt the natural values that the masters embody and manifest in order to keep prevailing over the rabble so that development and growth are possible. Of course, the reverse of growth and development was the end result of that cultural undermining.

    That instinctive strategy was used in France and Russia to bring about their revolutions. It is being used now with the use of socialism, communism, political correctness, feminism, Covid-19, the climate emergency, cancel culture and identity politics.

    Darren Grimes of GB News discusses how this political phenomenon is currently being used with the professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, Eric Kaufman. The discussion begins 29 minutes into the video.

    Real Britain with Darren Grimes – 19th February 2022 –

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>