U.S.A. Cooling and Reference Years

See the entry today entitled "Global Warming Ended?.  In the interview quoted, you will find a mention of "reference year".   This is one of the many frauds of "global warming".

I can "prove" that temperatures in the U.S.  have been COOLING simply by picking the right STARTING point (even picking the right starting decade will pretty much eliminate any warming--beyond the issues as to changing temperature measurements explaining a good portion of the claimed "warming"). 

I choose the starting, reference year of 1936 (the single WARMEST year since U.S. temperature record keeping began).  Although 2006 was a vitrual tie, and several years in the last decade have been amoung the ten "warmest" in the last century, it is clear that the U.S.A. has COOLED since 1936.   2007 was a MUCH COOLER year, and 2008 is starting off to be similar to 2007 in the U.S. 

I have mentioned before the chart of U.S. temperatures, by year, in Michael Crichton's book, "Sate of Fear".  The point here is NOT that temperatures have "cooled" in the U.S. since 1936.   What has really happened, as Crichton asserts, is that there is NO CONSISTENT TREND in U.S. temperatures since the 19th Century (the 19th Century being TOO COLD to start with--some warming from the average of that century being a good thing).  Temperatures have gone up and down.  Yet, this is NOT true of greenhouse gas emissions, whcih have gone consistently up. 

This means that your starting reference (totally arbitrary) becomes CRUCIAL.  If you pick a WARM year, or warm decade, as your starting point, then there is no real warming.  If you pick a COOL year as your starting point, suddenly there appears to be warming.  In reality, in the U.S. what we have is a series of up and down temperratures, with no consistent trend (warming or cooling).   See again Crichton's chart.

This is NOT the kind of data that can support a relationship between greenhouse gases and temperatures in the U.S.  HHOW can there be such a relationship, when 1936 is the WARMEST U.S. year, and not even an aberrational year.   That essentially proves that greenhouse gases are NOT the primary factor in U.S. temperatures over the past century.  You simply can't, from a scientific point of view, pick a COLD starting point, and then act like there has been a consistent warming from that starting point.  You can't do that when there has been an erratic, up and down pattern of temperatures, over more than a century, in the U.S.  In other words, as Michael Crichton says, U.S. temperatures provide NO support for "global warming" (the concept that man-made factors are causing a CONSISTENT rise in temperature corresponding to the rise in greenhouse gas levels).

As that previous entry pointed out, the very same thing is now occurring with WORLD temperatures.  By the original "global warming" method of calculating the mythical "temperature of the Earth", 1998 is the WARMEST year.   That means that if you start in 1998 (now a full decade ago), the Earth has COOLED.  Even if you look at the entire patter, the warming "trend line" for the world, starting in about 1970, has STOPPED. We have reached a plateau, with a very recent indication of cooling, over the years since 1998.  Yet, this is the very time when "global warming" was supposed to be ACCELERATING.

Wen you consider (sse Michael Crichton's book again) that the WORLD went through a COOLING period from 1940 to 1970, before seeming to enter a period of seemingly consistent warming, the relationship of greenhouse gases and the "temperature of the Earth" is falling apart.  You can't explain these temperature variations (1940 to 1970, and the recent leveling off of the world temperature) with "global warming" theory.  All you are left with is the religious "faith" that greenhouse gases will start the Earth to warming again, evn though there are obviously other factors involved in the temperature data.

"Global warming" "theory" envisions a diagonal upward line of steadilwarming temperatures (see Crichton's book as to how that line seemed to exist for a few decades after 1970), or even a hyperbolic curve where the warming ACCELERATES.  Instead, we have a DECELERATION of "global warming", altong with a discontinuity from 1940 to 1970 (unexplained in "global warming" "theory").  Further, we have no consistent warming trend AT ALL in the U.S.A. 

Despite all of this, "global warming" fanatics want to treat their "theory" (not really a full fledged "theory", as I have said, but a vague hypothesis/concept) as FACT.

Do these people (environmentalists, leftists, the mainstream media, and others who have bought into the fraud of "global warming"), have any credibility?  I think not. 

What "global warming" advocates have consistently shown is a willingness to "cherry pick" data to say what they want it to say (what President Bush is accused of doing in Iraq, with less justification for that accusation than for the accusation that "global warming" advocates are doing exactly that with regard to temperature and climate data).

The end justifies the means, for "global warming" advocates, and therefore you cannot believe a single word they say.   They have made clear that they fully indend to ignore data that does ot fit into their agenda/world view.