Recent news articles in the mainstream media state that the next few years will see extreme temperatures exacerbated by cyclical phenomena.
Extreme Temperatures Especially Likely for the Next Four Years says the Guardian.
Next Five Years Will Be Anomalously Warm says The Washington Post.
Take note that the images associated with the articles. In the first image, the sun is low on the horizon thereby producing more red hues as the light has further to travel than it does when overhead, but to the human brain, we associate red with warmth. In the second image, we see a coal-powered plant to indicate bad human industries burning up coal and polluting the planet with Co2, except that Co2 is not a pollutant, it is a plant nutrient that speeds up plant growth and is used extensively in greenhouses for just that purpose and that is not Co2 coming out, it is steam that is produced by cooling water.
"Units 1, 2 and 3 are equipped with electrostatic precipitators to control particulates. The Unit 4 boiler is equipped with a wet particulate scrubber that collects both particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. To also reduce particulates and sulfur dioxide on Unit 3, we installed a cloth filter bag house in 2010 and the same is planned for Unit 4 in 2012. Additionally, we installed low-nitrogen oxide burners on Units 3 and 4 in 2009 and 2010."~Pacific Corp
This company claims on their factsheet that they are one of the lowest producers of electricity in the United States and unlike most renewable sources such as wind or solar it can be run constantly and is not dependent upon the weather of that day. I personally am all for the development of cleaner sources of energy, but shutting down plants like this will only produce scarcity and scarcity to the capitalist is a wet dream as it is an excuse for price increases.
So, right from the get-go, they have subliminally affected how you will perceive the text to come via the images. To be fair, this is a common news practice and is not limited to the propaganda of global warming. Edward Bernays(1) set the standard decades ago showing that successful "public relations", a phrase he coined to replace the word "propaganda", is based on eliciting an emotional response and has nothing to do with facts or knowledge.
Let's deconstruct the so-called facts in these articles.
The Guardian
"Cyclical natural phenomena that affect planet’s climate will amplify effect of manmade global warming, scientists warn"~
This subtitle accompanies the image of the red-hued cityscape and so, of course, drives home the point of bad man and their global warming. Later in the article, they offer this graph provided by the Guardian.
This graph is a lie and totally obfuscates the hot dustbowl thirties when temperatures were much higher than they allow for.
Both these images reveal that the thirties was warmer than what the Guardian is claiming is a linear temperature climb due to human industriousness during this past century. This may or may not be based on Dr Phil Jones hockey stick chart, of which, when asked, he refused to release the data upon which it is based out of a fear, he claimed, that someone would disprove his work. This is not science which requires reproducibility to confirm a scientist's claim of discovery.
The article says; "The world is likely to see more extreme temperatures in the coming four years as natural warming reinforces manmade climate change, according to a new global forecasting system."
Natural warming..? Not according to the satellite data compiled by Dr Spencer.
The last three years show a drop in temperature by 0.32* C and it is expected to decline further due to the quiet sun. Let's take an even longer look at global temperature using proxy data such as ice cores over 10,000 years and see what the natural temperature trend is.
What about this "new global forecasting system"?
"The scientist built his forecasting system by statistical “hind-casting”. This crunches the data from previous climate models to measure which combination was most effective in predicting past temperature trends. "
Ahh, they used "previous climate models" which interestingly they do not mention failed their predictions by 90-300%. What good is a new model built from the best of those that failed?
The article further states; “Natural variability is a wriggle around the freight train that is global warming,” he says. “On a human scale, it is what we feel. What we don’t always feel is global warming. As a scientist, this is frightening because we don’t consider it enough. All we can do it give people information and let them make up their own mind.”
Unfortunately, as a scientist, if you start from the wrong premise(3)
you will never succeed. The claim that "natural variability is a wiggle.......global warming" is based on erroneous data that underplays the solar involvement. It claims that sunspots are cool because they are dark, where-as sunspots actually release large amounts of x-rays, gamma rays and ultraviolet which are high energy on the em spectrum and by dismissing their effect on the global climate you are starting on the wrong foot and will trip yourself with wrong assumptions.
In the next bit of the article, other scientists praise the work thereby producing a confirmation bias for you the uneducated who hold these people in high esteem.
The article ends with; “If the warming trend caused by greenhouse gas emissions continues, years like 2018 will be the norm in the 2040s, and would be classed as cold by the end of the century,” he wrote.
Again I refer you to the above graph showing a 10,000-year decline in temperatures. You will note on that graph that there were warm periods and cool periods and these fluctuations took place long before the modern industrial era.
The Washington Post
Right off the bat, they make a false claim;"The past four years have been the four warmest ever recorded..". Ever? This is an absolutist term and is often used by bullies to exaggerate their argument. Ice core data pictured above shows that this claim is false as the planet has been steadily cooling for ten thousand years and this is a typical statement meant to engender an emotional response in the reader. And the UAH graph produced by Dr Spencer shows even in the short term the last three years are showing a cooling trend. They also use this opportunity to link to one of their own articles criticizing Trump and in this article they offer an image as evidence.
The only problem is that much of this data is false as they claim this shows highs and lows over a baseline set between 1951-1980. For one there were very few land-based temperature reading stations especially in the early years and especially in remote regions and satellites back then monitoring the Earth were non-existent. Arctic Ice monitoring by satellite began in 1979 and so too did temperature monitoring begin that same year as is confirmed by Dr Spencer in his graph. This creates an opportunity for them to input whatever data they want to make their case. Also, referring back to Dr Spencer's PDO graph we can see that this baseline that they used was a cooling period thereby giving a false or biased baseline. But, to the non-critical eye unaware of these details regarding the data, it looks bad, if not very bad thereby putting this alleged news into the disinformation bin.
Back to the original article.
"and now, according to a new scientific forecast, the next five will also probably be “anomalously warm,” even beyond what the steady increase in global warming would produce on its own." ~
I have already shown how this statement is false and how their model that produced this forecast is built on previously failed models and that the big picture reveals a millenium of global cooling and any warm periods such as the interglacial periods are themselves anomalous. In other words humanity exists because of anomalously warm periods.
"That could include another record warmest year, even warmer than the current record year of 2016." ~Well, this is almost true as 2016 was the warmest since satellite data began recording in 1979, but is it the warmest this century? Perhaps, but unlikely since the 1930s had far more number of warmer days according to the EPA. Of course this doesn't take the entire globe into account but considering such data is sparse it is disengenuous to make claims otherwise.
"Earth is warming, but this does not mean that every year is warmer than the previous one. Rather, there is an overall warming trend — meaning that each successive decade tends to be warmer than the last — but also plenty of bouncing around among individual years in how hot they get."~ Again, this is a half truth and the most successful lies are built on half-truths. Earth is not warming, the overall trend over the millenium is one of cooling, it only warmed this past century following what was known as The Little Ice Age. So to state that each successive decade is warmer than the previous is a falsehood as we can see the 1960s and the 1970s did not successively get warmer and more recently starting around 2008 temperature got cooler.
"During the global warming “hiatus” during the 2000s, for instance, these internal factors, such as oscillations in Earth’s oceans, helped keep the planet somewhat cooler than it might otherwise have been and blunted the pace of warming-.."~ What they seem to neglect to mention is that "these internal factors" are driven by solar output vis sunspots. Those things on the sun they claim are cool because they are dark or so say their textbooks(3).
It is the sun that warms or cools the oceans which are somewhat slower than land in responding to these fluctuating inputs. To speak of the ocean and not mention how they are heated is diengenuous.
"The study finds a 58 percent chance that Earth’s overall temperature from 2018 through 2022 will be anomalously warm based on these factors, and a 69 percent chance that Earth’s oceans will be." ~ These are not overwhelmingly great odds and I certainly would not risk my life on a 58% probability of success. as for their claim of 69% for the oceans, let us not forget that this is based on a model that was based on several failed models that allegedly were able to account for the tmperature pause of 2000. Does their model account for all other swings and patterns in climate? Not likely, and lets be clear that history is full of model's that were successful in one or two predictions but failed miserably over the long run. Just ask Copernicus.
"Already, 2018 is shaping up to be a pretty warm year — although not record-breaking. " ~ Finally, some truth. It has been a fairly warm summer, but let us not forget the winter that preceded it and lasted late into the spring deffering crop planting till much later than usual. A winter that saw hundreds of decades old cold temperature records broken. And Siberia saw tmperatures drop to -67*C to be officially colder than the Antarctic on that day. And this was the second winter in a row that had been colder than normal and in my opinion, based on the double dynamo model of the sun this winter will be magnitudes worse than last.
In the next section of the Post article they ask two scientists for their reaction and I will give the Post some credit for at least mentioning this;*"“Let’s be clear, being 58% confident that 2018 will be 0.02ºC above the forced trend . . . is not practically significant (even if it might be skillful)," Schmidt wrote in an email."~ That is Gavin Scmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Do I need mention that the other scientist asked praised the new model, which when you think about it has even yet to prove itself, so praising it is a bit premature.
WHAT?!! The Guardian didn't mention anything of this alleged temperature increase being only 2/100ths of a degree(0.02C). All this media attention for something so insignificant as 0.02C increase.
This summer has been warm, though few hot temperature records have been broken and worse yet it is coupled with drought which then tends to be followed by torrential downpour where a region gets a month's worth of rain in a few hours producing floods as the dry land cannot absorb so much water. Coupled with this we have seen very large hail 2-4" causing billions of damage to property as well as damaging crops already weakened by a late spring planting and drought. This is not a first and has happened many times before and every time it has happened has been in conjunction with Solar Minimums. Global warming is cyclical as is global cooling and it has nothing to do with Co2 and NASA has known that Co2 does not drive weather for some time now.
With the decrease in solar output, we can with confidence state that we are in a cooling phase, but unlike the last few such phases of this cycle it is coupled with a weakening magnetosphere which is allowing in more cosmic rays and these have been shown to produce rain nucleation(cloud cover), as well as, excite silicious volcanoes. These aspects of our present global situation has the potential to plummet the Earth into another mini iceage and to be limiting carbon based fuels at this time is only going to increase the hardship to come.
This is not the end of the world. Though it may be the end of civilization as we know it.
(1)-"Propaganda" by Edward Bernays published 1928 available for free here
(2)http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/ - "Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."
(3)Ben Davidson of Suspicious Observers
(4)Atmosphere Weather and Climate 6th Ed. by R. Barry & R. Chorley pub. 1992
Thank you for reading. For more posts like this please feel free to follow me. Leave an interesting comment or question and I shall follow you.
Compiled and written by Freddie Thornton
PEACE
