Global warming crusades in perspective.

Apart from the fact that we are now likely to hit 28 days in Chicago, without the high for the day reaching freezing. There is this, that puts your Prius in perspective:

1) The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland in 4 days wiped out all the global warming gains in the last 5 years.

2) The Mt Pinatubo eruption in the Phillipines in 1991 spewed more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all it's years on earth.

3) And the bush fires in the US and Oz will wipe out all the global warming efforts mounted in the next two years.

Unfortunately the bush fires happen every year and there are  200 active vol canoes spewing crud every year.

This from Ian Plimer professor emeritus of earth sciences at  Melbourne University. But on a positive note, he now estimates the earth has cooled 0.7 degrees in the last 100 years and suggests you forget about all the politicians trying to control your life in the Guise of saving the earth. Damn good advice.

Actually no, it's about averages. And even the global warming scientists admit there has been no warming.....zero over the last 20 years. There will always be weather extremes. for example last year we had the quietest hurricane season in living memory.

For the moment we are arguing about a possible 1 degree centigrade rise over the 20th century. But every planet in our solar system had a temperature rise....dontcha hate those gas guzzlers on Mars!  

Have you ever developed a mathematical model Abasque? I did, for my PhD and I can tell you, these models are highly sensitive to assumptions. There are feedback loops that accentuate any independent variable. The proof of the pudding is if the models predict reality and until now they are hopelessly overshooting reality.

That's not my view, it's the view of the Economist Magazine....a publication that was in the vanguard of calling for action on global warming. It's not an exaggeration to say there is no correlation between the models and reality.

You keep quoting specific examples. So I'll do the same:

The All-time Hottest Temperature Ever Recorded in Chicago is 105 Degrees

The hottest temperature ever recorded in the city of Chicago, Illinois is 105 degrees, which occurred on July 24, 1934.

From the National Weather Service. To my recollection we haven't had one day over 100 degrees in this Millenium.

Here's another for you melting polar ice cap chaps:

What is Alaska's highest recorded temperature?

100°, Fahrenheit. This record high was recorded on June 27, 1915 at Fort Yukon.  

But suit yourself.

.

.

... another duplicate

Note that the surface temps have strongly diverged from the model and satellite temperatures, regarded as the the most accurate gauge of temperature change, have broken away completely from model predictions. Note also, in the almost 40 years of measurement we have only gained 0.3 of a degree, most of which occurred before 2000. Since then we have no warming and since 2005 we actually have cooling.

These facts are not in dispute, only the causes. But in the absence of a major volcanic explosion like Mt Pinatubo which would have suppressed temps for a year or so, , it's not at all obvious why we have this divergence. The temperatures are real. That tends to leave the models.

These models are huge multivariate constructs with feedback loops and thousands upon thousands of inputs. They were designed by scientits whose grant money is dependent on proving global warming.

The smart money is betting on model error.

Take another look at the temperature chart....it's right in front of your eyes. There has been no significant warming for 40 years. The ice melts and in the case of the arctic right now,  it reforms, it's called nature. People site glacier shrinkage, but fail to note the glaciers were already shrinking in the 1920s when the carbon issue was non existent. If carbon was an issue back then there should be no ice on the planet now.

Here's the simple logic. Carbon emissions are supposed to impact temperature, which in turn is supposed to make the sea rise and the ice melt. But if carbon emissions have hardly moved temperature globally, see the chart.....local effects like melting ice in a particular region are not due to global warming. They are due to local warming unrelated to rising global temperatures

We have 7.2 billion people on the planet. That number continues to increase dramatically.  The only reliable sources of energy are oil, nuclear and  hydroelecricity. Hydro is pretty much tapped out and after Japan, you can't build a new nuclear plant. So, to avoid starvation the world will increase it's use of oil. And as Plimer points out, the consequences will be no more than another Mt Pinatubo erupting...much better than 5 billion starving people.

RooiAAS the day you can explain anything quantitative to me is the day I slit my writs. Have you figured out how to integrate x squared yet, hell you have had 10 years!

As for Wardud, a bunch of parroted phrases and completely unrelated effects....no substance.

 Lest we forget. And look at the scale, we are talking fractions of one degree. This is NASA data and the most reliable ground data available.....0.3 of a degree increase in  40 years....no warming since 2000.....declining temps since 2005.