27 Replies to “Things You’ll Never See On The CBC”

  2. Does this not show they are on track for their predictions/models which say 1 degree of warming in 60 years? I don’t think the argument was ever about if there IS warming – it was always about whether 1 degree is our fault and is it really worth the hysteria when put in geological time pespective. could money be better spent sheilding our selves our crops and water supply from temporary warming cycles instead of transferring the private wealth of the west to global hucksters, communist regimes and alarmist politicians and NGOs?

  3. And that graph takes Zero Celsius as a baseline which is, of course, quite arbitrary. Take Zero Kelvins as the baseline and the difference is even less perceptible, if that’s possible.

  4. Occam….that is what the argument is about between people who still have critical thinking skills.When it gets to the level of political and money grubbing,not scientific,plus add the religous fervor of the eco-cultists,and it is no longer logical.IMO, the UN,IPCC,Pachurri,Hansen,Gore,etc. should all be charged with crimes against humanity.

  5. Actually Occam, that shows a .07c increase over 15 years. That’s 7 one hundreths of a degree. At that rate it would take well over 200 years to rise just ONE degree celsius. If my math is wrong I will stand corrected however. Pretty sure I’m right.

  7. Well, given that “average temperature” for the planet is a pretty hard thing to actually define, let alone measure, what this graph shows is that the change in temperature is insignificant.
    If you look at other readily-available graphs showing temperature series over a long time frame, this is absolutely trivial. Natural variations swamp out any “AGW signal.”

  8. Precisely. Given the less than perfect coverage of the Earth by weather stations, the first place after the decimal point is of dubious significance and the second place is absolute fantasy. The differences within a room on a given day are much larger.

  11. Only yesterday, Glowbull had a story from Antarctica stating that melting was unprecedented, as told by Nature magazine. This at the end of the summer in the southern hemisphere.
    Critical thinking not required.

  12. DanBC
    Yeah well, if you exclude any warming at the north end of the Palmer/Antarctic Peninsula, north of the Antarctic Circle…..there IS NO WARMING…but rather a 30+ year long cooling and a vast increase of sea ice.

  13. As I explain almost daily to my kids, this entire global warming fraud has nothing to do with caring for the environment or the planet in general, and everything to do with wealth redistribution, more taxes, and more government.
    As I also explained to them, if the fraudsters get their way there will be financial winners and losers in the outcome. The losers will be ordinary middle class citizens. The winners will be the enviro-hypocrites like Gore, Suzuki, wind turbine manufacturers, electric car shysters, and other fat and devious weasels who have come to the trough to grab the easy feed.
    It is a scam on such a grand scale that I still find it astonishing there are those who cannot see it for what it is.

  14. their methodology doesn’t allow for a accurate temp within 1 degree C, soooo these a$$hats just blew themselves outa the water. Butt the pols will keep TAXING the air we breath!!!

  15. It’s not about the data, and never was. It’s equal parts white guilt/disgust at the success of our civilization coupled to 50 years of post modern higher education, resulting in an attempt to do what King Canute couldn’t do without the power of a tax regime at his disposal.

  16. You’re all such oil shills. We’ve warmed the earth .08% in only 15 years. At this rate, by 2040 the planet will explode – they’ve just checked their models. We are the ones who are going to do it, not the sun or anything else, just us – that’s right – the Taaaar Sands. Not Chinese coal, or pollution anywhere else. Or France. Canada, with her high “per capita” emissions is the “problem” Don’t you see? The Taaaar Sands, at .05% of human emissions must be shut down – for humanity’s sake.
    Or, we’ve warmed the earth ONLY .08% That’s right wind turbines and carbon taxes have kept the planet’s fever from getting out of control. If we up carbon taxes “just a little bit” then the earth will not explode in 2040 – it’ll just be ruled by a humongous socialist world government, modelled on true success stories like the UN.
    It’s about saving the earth and anyone who doesn’t see that is well, not very smart, ahem.

  18. Here are the Global Temperature Anomalies for the last 20 years — [just add to 14 degrees C to get global temperatures.] so you too can play with the figures.
    // So the respected Canadian environmental writer, Lawrence Solomon, recently had the bright idea of publishing in his Financial Post newspaper column a graph showing the temperature changes of the past 15 years in proper perspective, //
    Ha ha! Any change can be made to look small if you make the range large enough. Incidentally, without CO2 in the atmosphere the global temperature would be way below that zero point.

  19. dizzy….ya fergot the “saturation ” thingy, thee effect of CO2 is logarithmic, kapeach???

  21. I think is reasonable to consider that difference to be well within the statistical margin of error…

  22. The leftists will now need to rebrand. I suggest “Global Climate Stasis.”
    Please surrender your wallets and freedom, comrades.

  23. this much variation must be pretty close to instrument error. the variation is not significant.

  24. this much variation must be pretty close to instrument error. the variation is not significant.
    Posted by: denis
    their methodology doesn’t allow for a accurate temp within 1 degree C,Posted by: NME666
    Exactly. The degree of error or imprecision in the temperature measurement that have been used to create the long term averages, far exceeds the amount of increase per decade claimed.
    It’s never been about the data, it’s how the data is spun to support different agendas.

  26. The AGW zealots love to parrot pseudo scientific ‘stuff’ they’ve copied from leftard blogs. Apparently the mere inclusion of numbers and terms like ‘percent’ mystifies their audience of lib-arts dropouts. One of their frequent mantra’s to ‘explain’ AGW, is thet human activity has increased CO2 by 40% since pre-industrial times.
    Yes CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen from ~280 ppm [parts per million] to ~380 ppm, and an increase of 100 ppm might seem like a 40% increase to the science challenged.
    Math reality brings a different perspective:
    Assume pre-industrial CO2 at 280ppm, that means 0.028% of the atmosphere was CO2.
    Current CO2 is at 380ppm, ie. 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2.
    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed by 0.01%. That’s a change of one hundredth of a percent, not 40%.
    From that perspective it’s easy to see why the small increase of CO2 has little effect on the global average temperature.

  27. // dizzy….ya fergot the “saturation ” thingy, thee effect of CO2 is logarithmic, kapeach???
    Posted by: NME666 on March 11, 2013 //
    Au contraire. It is assumed in what I said. Just as doubling has effect X, while requiring twice as much CO2 each time to get that effect, so also does HALVING get the opposite effect, while requiring the removal of only half as much CO2 to get that effect.
    Or, as a “>http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf”> recent paper put it —
    // The impact of entirely removing CO2 is almost 7 times the impact of doubling CO2, underlining the highly nonlinear nature of the forcing due to CO2 concentration change over this range. //
    North_of_60, if your boss offers you a 40% increase, he means on your salary, not the company payroll [sorry]

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation