Climate Tricks 58, Inability to disprove past global warming precedents

Whenever some people would insist on the anthropogenic or "man-made" global warming/climate change (CC), I ask these three questions.

1. Planet Earth is 4.6 billion years old, when was the time, what period, that there was NO climate change?

2. What was it like before this "man-made" warming/CC -- less rain, no rain, more rains? less flood, no flood, more floods? less snow, no snow, more snow?

3. Of the recent global warming from the mid-1800s to roughly the last decade, how much of it was man-made vs nature-made? 100-0? 80-20? 51-49?

Please cite scientific sources for all your answers above.

100% of all time, their answer is the sound of silence. Or they will put various links, various reasons and alibi, none of which answer directly any of the three questions.

Which shows that they are unsure, they do not really know, what they are talking about. I bet even the UN IPCC officials do not have clear answers to those questions.

Corollarily, I will ask them to disprove this chart among others, that there were no global warming, global cooling cycles in the past 5,000 years. Show that global warming is "unprecedented" or disprove those many global warming precedents. 

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/Main/Warm_periods.jpg

One friend posted in my fb wall this uncited statements:

“This record shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.[2]

Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.[2].”

I went back to the above questions and chart, and as expected, the answer is the sound of silence. He is a devout Catholic religionist, I advice him to stick to believing the words of the bible, not the words of Al Gore, the UN and many governments. I further adviced him that he's angry at various deception and corruption of the PH government, other governments, yet he believes, he embraces, the deception and corruption of the UN, etc. in the "man-made" warming/CC religion.

Meanwhile, another good chart, warming-cooling cycles in the past 450,000 years.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif

Religion is based on faith. People do not need much those charts, graphs, tables, numbers, equations. They just close their eyes and have faith in a God or supreme being, and this is fine. It is a spiritual thing, a personal belief.

When people extend this behavior in the climate debate, they treat the anthropogenic cause as a religion. No charts, no numbers, to directly answer the three questions above. When shown with hard data that disprove their statements, they close their eyes to those "inconvenient" data and continue believing the religion spawned by the UN, Al Gore, et al. Which is roughly 5% climate science and 95% political science.

The UN and many governments should step out of heavily politicizing this issue. This is among the issues that reduces the credibility and integrity of the UN. It siphons much of its energy and resources away from performing its main purpose, its raison d'etre why it was created in 1945 -- to set international laws and enforce the rule of law among member-governments, especially in settling territorial disputes between and among countries.

--------------

See   also:

Climate Tricks 55, Paris Deal vs scientific papers debunking the AGW hypothesis, July 10, 2016
Climate Tricks 56, Using the CHR for climate harassment, July 30, 2016 
Climate Tricks 57, "Preventing flash floods" and the Green SONA, August12, 2016

Climate Tricks 47, Severe UK flooding due to "man-made" warming, climate change?

Never fails. Less rain or more rain or no rain, less flood or more flood or no flood, less storms or more storms or no storm, they are ALL proof of "man-made" warming and climate change. tsk tsk tsk.

In the recent heavy flooding in the UK, some officials blame "man-made" global warming (GW) and climate change (CC), not their policies that discourage regular dredging of silted rivers. From another heavy flooding just two years ago, they have an idea already that their existing flood defence system was insufficient, meaning they can anticipate another round of heavy flooding, yet they conveniently blame "man-made" CC. Why not also blame "nature-made" CC so they can plan and act more realistically, rather than alarmingly.

See these news reports.

(1) “Climate change is forcing England to re-assess its flood defences in the face of unprecedented river level surges, one of the United Kingdom government’s most senior environment officials says.

“We are moving from a period of known extremes into a period of unknown extremes,” said David Rooke, deputy chief executive of the UK government’s Environment Agency, which manages the country’s rivers. “We will need to re-assess all the defences right across the country.”

http://www.smh.com.au/world/unprecedented-flooding-in-britain-prompts-renewed-discussion-about-climate-change-20151228-glw0lw.html

(2) "Two years ago, the south of England experienced its wettest period for almost 250 years as tidal surges battered East Anglia, threatening the country’s most productive farmland. Flimsy silt and clay flood defences, at least 50 years old and fast deteriorating, proved no match for the forces of nature." http://www.theguardian.com/.../threat-climate-change...

(3) "* PM suggested greater frequency of 'extreme weather events' was to blame

* Liz Truss, the environment secretary, said rainfall was 'unprecedented'

* Simon Danczuk accused ministers of 'hiding behind' climate change issue

* Ministers reduced funding on defences before severe flooding in Cumbria a year ago forced them to reverse the cuts"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../David-Cameron-says-climate...

(4) "There is no “EU River Management Official” whom ordinary people can vote out of office. While there is an elected European Parliament, the parliament is virtually toothless – it has no real oversight powers, and no power to source new legislation. All new laws are proposed by a soviet style central committee, the European Commission, which also has responsibility for overseeing implementation of the laws." http://wattsupwiththat.com/.../british-officials-blame.../

(5) "DAVID Cameron has sparked outrage by blaming Britain’s flood crisis on global warming while admitting defences are not fit for purpose.

However experts branded his comments “ludicrous excuses” blaming lack of investment on flood defences for the disaster and pointed to historic flooding which pre-dated global warming.

They accused the Prime Minister of deflecting attention away from accusations Britain is woefully unprepared for severe weather." http://www.express.co.uk/.../Historic-weather-records...

(6) "‘Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive. So, in order to comply with the obligations imposed on us by the EU we had to stop dredging and embanking and allow rivers to ‘re-connect with their floodplains’, as the currently fashionable jargon has it." https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/.../what.../

Because people are expecting or been fooled by the UN of "more warming" of 2C or 3C or higher, they cannot prepare for global cooling. The UN (and Al Gore, and di Caprio, and WWF, Greenpeace,...) is very shrewd to announce that no rain/drought or more rain/flood, are both proof of "man-made" warming/CC.

Wake up guys. Frequent less rain/drought is proof of global warming. Frequent rains/flood is proof of global cooling. 

Now It’s Global Cooling! German Weekly Warns Scientists See “Mini Ice Age Coming In Just A Few Years” 

http://notrickszone.com/2015/12/29/now-its-global-cooling-german-weekly-warns-scientists-see-mini-ice-age-coming-in-just-a-few-years/#sthash.kT7QopXP.dpbs

A friend, Todd Foster, commented,

“As I always ask the non scientists that tend to make up the government class, what is your plan, how much is it to cost, and what would it have done about this flood? Seriously, the reason the failed political class of Britain is blaming something they can't control is that they cut funding for something they could control...flood control projects. And why not? It's not as if a low information population will ever demand better of it's political class.”

The same here in the PH. Yearly, many municipalities in Bulacan and Pampanga provinces are heavily flooded, until about last week. Why, the rivers are heavily silted with lahar that continue to flow down from Mt. Pinatubo, and will continue for the next 20 years or more. But the PH government would rather spend on maintaining a CCC bureaucracy, sending many climate, environment, science, Malacanang and other officialsm to various UN and related global and regional climate meetings, climate conferences, etc. Instead of spending the money to do huge, large-scale and continuing dredging of these heavily-silted rivers and creeks. Some municipal governments in Bulacan spend big money raising the roads, up to 1 meter high.

So readers, find the difference between these 2 statements:

1. "Less flood or more flood or no flood, they are proof of 'man-made' warming and climate change and hence, government must send more money to favored renewables, to climate officials, to the UN,..."

2. "Mr. X has less money or more money or no money, it is proof that he is poor and hence, government must subsidize him and his family (more CCT, free PhilHealth & medicines, free education & books,...)."

As always, “man-made” or anthopogenic GW/CC is a big excuse and alibi for more environmental and energy regulations, more and bigger governments, bigger UN, bigger multilaterals and foreign aid.

So this movement cannot and will not accept that GW and CC is natural and cyclical, that it is "nature-made", largely or entirely. GW and CC should be "man-made" so that "man-made" solutions and regulations can be imposed.

The ultimate goal is global ecological central planning, global climate and energy socialism.

-------------

See also:

Climate tricks 43, Interview at Sonshine Radio, DZAR 1026, August 08, 2015 

Climate Tricks 44, Scary predictions in 2009, August 11, 2015 

Climate Tricks 45, On "vanishing" snow and "Godzilla" El Nino, November 13, 2015 Climate Tricks 46, More alarmism --> more climate money expectation --> more disappointment, December 12, 2015

Climate Tricks 46, More alarmism --> more climate money expectation --> more disappointment

The main irony of climate alarmism is this. 

1. Top climate activists and UN officials paint very scary, very alarming scenario 100 years away,

2. People and climate activists from developing countries demand more climate money, hundreds of $ billions per year of money (ie, more alarmism, more climate extortion), 

3. Officials from rich countries, their economies already saddled in heavy public debts, resist the huge climate money blackmail,

4. More disappointment, even anger, with deadlocks.

This is repeated yearly in all the past Conference of Parties (COP) meetings by member-governments of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).

Take this story for instance last December 04, 2015:

“PARIS, France - Angry developing nations warned Thursday that increasingly tense UN talks aimed at averting catastrophic climate change would fail unless a bitter feud over hundreds of billions of dollars was resolved.

Negotiators from 195 nations are haggling in Paris over a planned universal accord to slash greenhouse-gas emissions that trap the Sun's heat, warming Earth's surface and oceans and disrupting its delicate climate system.”

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/12/04/15/un-climate-talks-turn-hostile-over-money

Some stories at the end of the COP 21 meeting, December  11, 2015:

"Britain and other rich countries face demands for $3.5 trillion (£2.3 trillion) in payments to developing nations to secure a deal in Paris to curb global warming. Developing countries have added a clause to the latest draft of the text under which they would be paid the “full costs” of meeting plans to cut emissions." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4637269.ece

"The night saw an ugly brawl as US Secretary Of State John Kerry threatened that developed countries would walk out of the agreement if they were asked to commit to differentiation or financial obligations. “You can take the US out of this. Take the developed world out of this. Remember, the Earth has a problem. What will you do with the problem on your own?” he told ministers from other countries during a closed-door negotiation on the second revised draft of the Paris agreement." 

ISSUES THAT HAVE DELAYED AGREEMENT

Should developed countries have a legal obligation to pay for climate change

Should developing countries, that do not have historical responsibility for emissions, also contribute to the fund

Should burden-sharing be based on current economic capabilities or a combination of historical emissions and current economic capabilities

Should the actions of developing countries be linked to the provision of finance and technology or should they be treated at par with developed countries going forward

Should there be a periodic review of delivery of finance and technology by developed world or not

Should the long-term goal be to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degree by the turn of the century or should it be somewhere between 1.5 degree and 2 degrees

Should poor and vulnerable countries continue to hold the right to file for damages against permanent loss caused to them because of climate change.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/us-threatens-to-walk-out-of-paris-pact-over-financial-obligations-115121100913_1.html

"Reacting to second version of the draft, Adriano Campolina, ActionAid Chief Executive, said, "In the closing hours of the Paris talks we have been presented with a draft deal that denies the world justice.

"By including a clause for no future claim of compensation and liability, the US has ensured people suffering from the disastrous impacts of climate change will never be able to seek the justice owed to them." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../50136956.cms... 

So here are some of the ironies and hypocrisy of climate alarmism movement.

Irony/hypocrisy 1: more alarmism, more extortion for climate money, more anger and disappointent.

Irony/hypocrisy 2: more hatred of fossil fuel, more use of fossil fuel with thousands of airplane flights to reach Paris from tens of thousands of climate negotiators + hangers on.

Irony/hypocrisy 3: many planet saviours hate nuclear power, then they go to France, enjoy uninterrupted electricity while France is the #1 nuke-dependent country in the planet. In 2013, 76% of its total electricity output came from nuke.

Greenpeace irony/hypocrisy very clear. They oppose nuke power, declaring, "End the nuclear age" http://www.greenpeace.org/internati.../en/campaigns/nuclear/

And they are in France, the #1 nuke-dependent country in the planet. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th nuke-dependent countries are Ukraine, Sweden, S. Korea and the US, 2012 data. 

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA), 2014 Key World Energy Statistics.

The planet is fine, it does not need self-proclaimed "planet saviours" and just undergoing the old and tested climate cycle of warming-cooling-warming-cooling, endlessly, with or without humans and their SUVs. 

The planet's inhabitants though need to be spared and saved from those climate charlatans whose goal in spreading climate alarmism is more government, more global ecological and energy central planning. Alarmism now simply digs its own contradictions and problems. 

------------- 

See also:

Climate Tricks 42, SDGs and Jeffrey Sachs, oil and warming planet, August 05, 2015 

Climate tricks 43, Interview at Sonshine Radio, DZAR 1026, August 08, 2015 

Climate Tricks 44, Scary predictions in 2009, August 11, 2015 

Climate Tricks 45, On "vanishing" snow and "Godzilla" El Nino, November 13, 2015 

BWorld 29, Paris COP's emission cut targets vs. energy needs, December 06, 2015

Climate stupidity 8: Shoot the messenger, not the message

A friend in facebook, will refer to him here as HIM1, posted in his status last April 22, Earth Day. I commented on it, then his other friend, HIM2, came to support HIM1. Here are our exchanges, from April 22 to April 29, 2011.

HIM1: The first Earth Day worked because of the spontaneous response at the grassroots level. We had neither the time nor resources to organize 20 million demonstrators and the thousands of schools and local communities that participated. That was the remarkable thing about Earth Day. It organized itself.

Wake Up Earthlings!
How the First Earth Day Came About By Senator Gaylord Nelson, Founder of Earth Day What was the purpose of Earth Day? How did it start? These are the questions I am most frequently asked. Actually, the idea for Earth Day evolved over a period of seven y...

Nonoy Oplas Pare, the planet is never and was never in danger, it's all part of natural climate cycles of warming-cooling-warming-cooling, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/04/climate-cycle-and-forecasts.html

HIM2: Check tis out: 6th (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/6th-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

if der s no problem w/ d planet den we can pollute more....waste more energy....hmmmm...very nice!

Nonoy Oplas: Pollution includes many other gases -- CO, NOx, lead, particulates, mercury, etc. The warming scam targets mainly CO2, hence the various regulations and prohibitions to control and tax CO2. I also don't like the emission of many other pollutant gases, but CO2 is not a harmful gas. It's the gas that you and I exhale, the gas that our pets and animals exhale, the gas that our plants and trees need for photosynthesis.

HIM2: here's d 5th (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/5th-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

warming scam?????

Nonoy Oplas: Weird. I showed my article with lots of graphs and data, very updated data like the same week where I wrote that article, you reply with literature with zero graph or data. Ok, here's another article, 2 graphs of sea ice extent in Arctic and Antarctica, then 2 satellite pictures of the same polar region, data as of the other day, Apr. 21, 2011, http://www.thelobbyist.biz/perspectives/less-gorvernment/666-lent-and-the-crucifixion-of-climate-science

HIM2: here's d 4th (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/4th-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/
pple have a choice: either one become part of d solution or one is part of the problem.

my choice: “I wish 2b a catalyst in d quest 4an environmentally sustainable, spiritually fulfilling & socially just human presence in tis planet……”
EQ or IQ?

Nonoy Oplas: That's why man-made warming is a new religion. Based on faith and belief, not science. Even if climate data show there is warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycles, people just keep their faith. And the UN, governments are too happy to impose new environmental regulations, new carbon taxes, carbon cap and trade, climate bureaucracies, get new climate loans, etc.

HIM1: Pareng Nonoy, you want graphs and data debunking the deniers of global warming. Here it is: www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html. It's the same old story of how so called global warming skeptics or climate change deniers fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate just to support their warped view that global warming is a myth.

try watching this video and maybe you'll be enlightened on the urgency for adopting decisive solutions to climate change: http://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ

BTW, is your organization, Minimal Government, a member of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (CSCCC)? Based on reports, the CSCCC was organized by the International Policy Network (IPN) which is a well known recipient of Exxon funding. IPN has received $390,000 from Exxon. Here's the link: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/outsourcing-skepticism.php#ch03 Just asking lang, Pareng Nonoy.

Nonoy Oplas: Thanks for the links, pare. Those are old data. Let me give you a link of pure data, updated weekly or daily. Zero discussion, just plain, hard data and graphs. (1) Arctic, Greenland, Antarctica, other polar ice data, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ocean/ (2) sea surface temperature data, el nino southern oscillation (ENSO), http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso/, and (3) solar activity, solar flux, cosmic rays, ap index, etc., also updated daily, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/.

About Exxon funding, etc., pls don't start the ad hominem criticism pare. It is easy to dig dirt about Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC, FCCC, Jim Hansen, etc. So let us focus on data. Prove, zero doubt, that climate change is NEVER natural, that there is no such thing as warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycles.

HIM 2: here's 3rd (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/3rd-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

itz odd pple r still debating if we need 2help save d planet....man u guys r late....famous skeptics already changed deir hearts...

hmmmm...i didn't know i'm into a new religion...i just wanted 2have better world....been tryin 2stop d pollution since early 90's.....didn't know am brainwashing young & old pple???? duh, am such a bad guy...

Nonoy Oplas: In religion, people don't need graphs, tables, statistical data. They just believe on something, like the existence of a God, it's fine. In the warming religion, people just believe in "man-made warming". Even if you show several dozens, even hundreds, of graphs, charts, tables and satellite pictures, that there is also global cooling occurring in cycle with wwarming. Belief in a particular religion makes people feel good about themselves. Amen.

HIM2: here's d 2nd (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/2nd-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/.

a lot of pple who believe dat climate change is a joke r very influential in deir fields...some even feel superior & discriminate others....some think they know better coz they know d truth....some loves just love 2argue...

i remember wen a fellow apec workin member on low carbon society told me dat he can interpret his data depending on who is paying him or funding his research....hmmmm he's really cool eh? 4me, i don care as long as he don't discourage pple fr stopping pollution. yes i feel good wen i do d right thing, e.g. saving d planet! i hate polluters...even mind polluters....of course specially those trashing our planet!

HIM1: Pareng Nonoy, the source of your "pure data" is whatssupwiththat.com. Its editor is Anthony Watts, awarded late last year as one of the World's Most Heinous Climate Villains. Here's the reason why AlterNet gave Anthony Watts the notorious award:

"Overnight, went from local TV weatherman to a climate 'expert,' constantly attacking scientific reports for groupthink, grant-seeking greed, and phony data. Sent his minions to photograph those US temperature stations which he claimed were too close to heat sinks, skewing temperature readings.

NOAA decided to take him up on his claim and analyzed the station data from all 1218 sites, and found no evidence of bias or distortion. Anthony instantly dropped the project with no mention of his error and simply began shouting, "Climategate!" -- the oil company e-burglary and nontroversy, which ultimately offered no evidence of scientific wrongdoing. People contribute to the "cookie jar" on his loony blog, but oil and coal companies support him through former pro-smoking "researchers" at the Heartland Institute. Anthony Watts' Most Egregious Lie: "The Hockey Stick is Broken!" Really? The hockey stick has been duplicated in over 20 charts from climate scientists, and vindicated in an exhaustive study by the National Academy of Sciences.”

Source: http://www.polluterwatch.com/category/freetagging/anthony-watts

Nonoy Oplas: Pare, mahilig kayo to focus on personalities and adhominems. Eto, adhominem attack and I have basis for saying this: ALL warming leaders in this country are cowards, duwag, when you challenge them to a public debate on climate. I have written to the top honchos of Earth Hour and WWF, calling their EH campaign as lunatic, showed them my paper why I said so, they only have 1 answer: sound of silence. I have challenged several warming leaders like Tony LaVina, Greenpeace, Oxfam Manila, etc. to a debate, all of them duck. I have written many articles in my blog,http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/, arguing why man-made warming is a joke and a scam, ALL with climate data to prove. Now, if you can produce any sensible, ready to square off in a debate on climate science and policy, thank you, you can disprove that not ALL warming leaders here are cowards. But my challenge remains, anywhere anyday. We debate data vs data, graph vs graph, satellite picture vs satlelite picture, of (a) air temp, lower troposphere, (b) land surface temp, (c) sea surface temp (SST), (d) polar ice, ARctic and Antarctica, (e) sea level height. Produce the latest data possible, preferably as of 1 day or 1 week before the scheduled debate.

In the US, Heartland organized 4 intl. conf on climate change (ICCC), 2 of which (1st and 2nd ICCC) were held in NYC in 2008 and 2009. NYC is the HQ of the UN and all its climate bureaucracies (IPCC, FCCC, UNEP, etc.). About 700 participants worldwide attended each of those ICCC, mostly scientists (physicists, meteorologists, climatologists, geologists, biologists, etc.) who openly and explicitly challenge the IPCC reports. Al Gore, IPCC head Pachauri, other key authors of the IPCC reports were all invited. And ALL of them chicken out, no show cowards. If the IPCC is so sure of its position, why didnt it send 100 or 500 of their "thousands of warming scientists" to debate face to face with those who question their reports? Only cowards and those unsure of their position duck off from debates. A topic as divisive as man-made warming shd be debated openly. Those who are cowards to open, public debates show that they know they are holding on to political science, not climate science.

HIM2: now i get it....ur a bully! just like d oder climate change skeptics who thought dey r a better human being....anyways here's d 1st (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind:http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/1st-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

sir nonoy oplas....der r lotz of earth warriors around...pls don't call pple cowards...u might regret it afterward....

Nonoy Oplas: Bully ba yon manghamon ka lang ng debate, fair debate? Tapos yong hinamon mo, palaging nasa dyaryo, sa tv, sa radyo, sa kalsada, so sure of what they are saying that the earth is in crisis and they are the saviors of the planet? Pag hinamon mo sa debate, parang kuting at tuta na ayaw magsalita? sus ginoo. Sabi nga ni Dong Abay ng Yano dati eh, "banal na aso, santong kabayo, natatawa ako, hehehehe"
-------

See the trend? Ask them to produce graphs, tables, data, the most updated ones (say, data as of yesterday) that produce definite, unequivocal warming. And they give you literatures how bad, how corrupted by big oil money, etc. the people are who question their religion. And the funniest thing there is when I asked for a debate, square public and transparent debate, I was accused of being a bully. Really strange.

See related article, Climate stupidity 3: Cowards to face public debates

Lent and the crucifixion of climate science

(This is my article yesterday in thelobbyist.biz)

Today is Good Friday, the day that Jesus was crucified and nailed on the cross, based on Catholic teaching. And today is also the “Earth Day”, the day that people should remember to “save the planet”, that our planet is in a crisis, is in danger. From whom?

The continued alarmism on “man-made warming” or its cousin, “man-made climate change”, is proof of continued crucifixion, of continued torture and bastardization of climate science. According to this cult, there is no such thing as global cooling, there is only “unequivocal” or definite global warming. There is also no such thing as natural climate cycle of warming-cooling-warming-cooling, there is only “unprecedented” climate change.

Below are the graphs of sea ice extent and satellite pictures, of the Arctic on the left and Antarctica on the right, as of April 21, 2011.

Years covered in the graphs are from 2002-2011 in the Arctic, and 2003-2011 in Antarctica. All data are from WUWT’s sea ice reference page, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

The above graphs are simply saying that the polar ice in both the Arctic in the north and Antarctica in the south, are simply on a regular cycle of melting-growing each year. There is no such thing as “ever-melting” or “melting faster than usual” ice in both ends of planet Earth.

As of this week, there are some 13 million sq.kms. of ice in the Arctic, a slight decline from its peak of some 14 million sq. kms. as of early March this year. Antarctica has around 7 million sq.kms. of ice, recovering after its annual low of some 2.5 million sq.kms. as of late February this year.

The two satellite pictures simply show the actual size of the ice in both ends of the planet as of this week.

The “ever-melting” polar ice is among the central fear-mongering campaign of the man-made warming cult, because that would mean rising ocean level, the flooding and inundation of so many cities and several small, low-lying countries. Which in turn will create hundreds of millions of “climate refugees” in so many countries around the world.

I am here in Iloilo City as I write this. I came from Cadiz-Bacolod cities yesterday. Two days I was there, it also rained on those two days. It is refreshing to have regular rains, or at least cloudy sky like here in Iloilo, even in late April.

What is ridiculous in the claims of the man-made warming cult is that when there are less rains and prolonged drought, it is due to man-made warming. When there are more rains and more flooding, it is also due to man-made warming. Whatever climate or weather we have, humanity and its modernization is evil for “destroying” the planet.

And that possibly represents the height of idiocy, and continued crucifixion, of climate science until now. Courtesy of the United Nations, many governments and the rent-seeking environmental NGOs.

Climate cycle and forecasts

There are lots of climate data and graphs that are freely available on the web. And what's more, they are updated monthly or weekly, if not daily. The peddlers of "man-made warming" or its more popular cousin, "man-made climate change" cannot show those graphs and data because the data also say that there is such as thing as "global cooling" aside from "global warming." And that what we really have are "natural climate cycles" and not "unprecedented man-made climate change".

Here is the latest data on the status of La Nina in equatorial Pacific. Above is for Nino region 3.4, below it is Nino region 4. The sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly as of April 17, 2011 in both regions was still in the negative territory, around -0.4 C.

The current La Nina is now 11 months old, SST anomaly went negative in May 2010. Data/graph is from Australia's Bureau of Meteorology, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml

Here is the medium-term SST anomaly record for Nino 3.4. Above graph shows data from mid-2006 to present. This (upper) graph shows data from 2000 to present. Cooling in 2000-2001, warming in 2002-2005, slight cooling in 2006, slight warming in 2007, cooling in 2008 - early 2009, warming in mid-2009 to mid-2010, then current cooling.

Lower graph shows the area where those Nino regions 1 to 4 are. Region 3.4 is the biggest or widest area, situated in the middle of equatorial Pacific Ocean. Nino 4 is the one closest to East Asia like the Philippines. These 2 graphs are from WUWT's ENSO page, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso/.

For those in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and other parts of East Asia, they will notice the colder-than-normal (or colder than the average) breeze and air temperatures, especially at night time. Why?

One explanation could be that as La Nina slowly retreats from equatorial Pacific, the warmer-than-normal sea water that La Nina pushed down and showed somewhere else (like in South China Sea) is also slowly coming back. Data is from http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/anomnight.current.gif.

Forecasts: when will the current La Nina end? Upper graph is from CFS-NOAA as of this week. The various lines represent the various forecasts from different climate models. The black broken line is the average for all forecasts. They show that the current La Nina will persist until the end of the year and possibly beyond.

Lower graph is from Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) and European Meteorological Organization (ECMWF). I got it from Joe Bastardi's No no El Nino (till 2012). The consensus or average forecasts say that La Nina will persist until end-2012 or beyond.

These 2 or more forecast graphs above speak well of the "reliability" of the UN IPCC and Al Gore climate models. If current climate models cannot predict with high certainty the temperature range just 3 to 10 months into the future, how can the IPCC models predict with certainty the world's temperature 90 to 100 years from now?

And why do we believe those far away temperature forecasts and guesses, when all weather forecasting agencies from all countries around the world that also use the latest and most sophisticated tools and techniques, cannot predict with high certainty the weather 3 days or 1 week from now? That is why the weather forecasts are updated and revised everyday, every 12 hours, or even every hour.