catastrophism Climate Change English Environment Science Skepticism

Back To Basics On Global Warming

What is the actual evidence for Global Warming? With all the noise coming out this week in the media, it is interesting to go back to the basics, i.e. to the actual measurements 


The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (Norwich, UK) has published temperature times series from 1850 to 2006

These are average global temperature “anomalies” (i.e. amounts above or below the 1961-90 average). Of particular interest the HadCRUT3v series, as it is presented as the most accurate. Uncertainties are in the order of +-0.05C (4 times as much in the XIX century)

If you plot those values, it makes for an impressive graph, with the hockey stick shape and all that. However, a better look at the most recent figures reveals:

1995: 0.27
1996: 0.138
1997: 0.347
1998: 0.526
1999: 0.302
2000: 0.277
2001: 0.406
2002: 0.455
2003: 0.465
2004: 0.444
2005: 0.475
2006: 0.422

  1. Even if it is true that 2006 has been among the warmest years, the maximum happened in 1998. Its temperature hasn’t been even remotely reached since
  2. Since 2001, values have not varied more than the accuracy of the data. In other words, there hasn’t been much of a change
  3. If one stops claiming that temperatures have changed when the figures vary less than the accuracy, the resulting graph is much smoother, with a possible asymptote at 0.3C or 0.4C

All in all there is little or no indication that we are experiencing unprecedentedly increasing temperatures. I am aware that 2007 has been forecast as “the warmest ever”, and it will be interesting to find out if the temperature stability of the past six years will be broken either upwards or downwards

And of course the most one can reasonably say is that “it’s too early to tell“. If only Mainstream Climatology would accept such a simple wisdom!!


What about the 2,500 scientists working for the UN at the IPCC? Well, it is not my fault if they have decided to sell their science to politics. If hundreds of bureaucrats can have a saying on the interpretation of Climate Change data, so can anybody else


What about other evidence of Climate Change such as melting glaciers? The basic tenet of the IPCC is that so-called Greenhouse Gases generated by human activity are responsible for increases in temperatures, and these in turn are changing the climate. So it does all depend indeed on temperatures first.

Somebody, someday will realize that Climate is made of more than just Temperature

2 replies on “Back To Basics On Global Warming”

Further ,I would propose that the measured increase in CQ2 is due to the increased temperatures…recent studies in ice core gases show CO2 concentrations 3x higher 100,000 yrs ago!

Edward D Lockhart the multitude of “Global Warming” reports in the press….Research data on Greenland and Antarctic ice core samples reveal that the EARTH has a very periodic cycle of ice age followed by a warm cycle (90,000 with a 27,000 year sub-cycle). We happen to be in the warm part of the cycle right now! 12,000 years ago 2/3 of N.America was covered with ice
sheets over 100 ft thick and the Great Lakes were solid ice blocks….Furthermore, studies of
the Martian polar caps over the last six years of recorded data show that they are melting at
very high rates! Both of these effects are directly caused by the solar orbit cycles and any scientist
of caliber will confirm this knowledge. This doesn’t negate the fact that we have increased the
CO2 dramatically since the start of the industrial age ,but suggests that a far more important
story is that the “oceans are not absorbing the CO2 increase”,which also can be directly linked
to the vast die-offs and confirmed “dead zones” within our oceans…to quote a line from
Soylent Green “IT’S PEOPLE”

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.