Today I'll post a
climate change article
that I wrote in mid-2014
for my economics newsletter,
which later led to this
Honest Global Warming Chart
blog.
I cut out about two thirds of the
article, because it was much too long
for a blog, but didn't change anything else,
other than fixing some formatting
problems from the cut & paste:
Science is never settled
Global warming hysteria is big business -- the people making and taking the money won't change their climate change catastrophe scaremongering no matter what the actual average temperature is.
.
They could not care less that the global average temperature peaked in 1998.
.
In almost five billion years of Earth's history, only 22 years, from 1976 to 1998, happened to have had both manmade CO2 emissions and the global average temperature rising at the same time.
.
From that mere 22 years, when two variables happened to move in the same direction -- not proof that one caused the other to rise -- leftists have invented a phony climate change crisis that "requires" everyone to do as they say!
.
You've got to give leftists credit for active imaginations!
.
The concentration of CO2 in the air has been higher than it is now a majority of the time during the almost 5 billion years of Earth's history.
.
CO2 levels on Earth today are near the lowest level in thousands of millions of years.
.
Earth has had several ice ages with more CO2 in the air than today -- up to 20 times more CO2 !
.
The claim that humans have caused global warming has no scientific proof.
.
The claim that global warming has, or will be, harmful to humans has no scientific proof.
.
In fact, global cooling has been happening for over a decade:
.
(1) Global oceans have been cooling since 2003 (the Pacific Ocean has been cooling for three decades), and
.
(2) The troposphere has been cooling since 1998.
.
The claim that more CO2 in the air has, or will be, harmful to humans has no scientific proof.
.
The theoretical effect of rising CO2 on average temperature is grossly exaggerated by the UN's IPCC.
.
The claim that rising CO2 levels cause global warming has no scientific proof because there has been no correlation between rising CO2 and rising average temperatures.
.
Only one relationship between average temperature and CO2 has ever been discovered:
- Natural global warming causes higher levels of CO2 in the air (Average temperature peaks were followed by CO2 peaks 500 to 1,000 year later, as warming oceans release CO2, based on detailed studies of Vostok, Antarctica ice cores).
.
Earth's climate is always changing.
.
Understanding climate change requires knowledge of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, paleontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history -- climate modeling has nothing to do with understanding climate change.
.
Computer-game wild guess predictions of the future climate are not science.
.
Computer models are not real data.
.
.
.
.
.
The first 163 years of our current “Modern Warming”, starting in roughly 1850, has been the most prosperous 163 years so far on Earth – warming so far has been good news for humans, not bad news!
.
The only bad news from the rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the overactive imaginations of climate change cult extremists desperately trying to manufacture a 'crisis' to advance their century-old pro-big-government, anti-corporation agenda.
.
A brief lesson on Earth's climate history
from a real scientist:
"Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5 C. This compares with a low of about 12 C. during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22 C. during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic Islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on Earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species." Patrick Moore, Ph.D.
Statement before the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee,
Subcommittee on Oversight -- February 25, 2014
If global warming science is really "settled", there's no need for spending any more money on climate research, especially the nearly worthless computer game models.
.
It's tough to use facts, data, and logic in a discussion with climate change cult extremists because they 'debate' with character attacks, slander, and once in a while they may spout a few statistics they don't understand, which are all false or grossly misleading, like trained parrots.
Summary
Using computer models to predict the future climate is not science:
.
(1) Climate models have no predictive ability.
One obvious reason is humans can't predict the future.
.
(2) The future climate can't be predicted.
One obvious reason is solar energy coming from our sun varies, and those variations are not predictable.
.
Manmade atmospheric CO2 rose rapidly after 1940.
The average temperature did not go up every year.
.
Here's what happened, using the
best measurements available:
(1) Average temperature went down from 1941 to 1976,
(2) Average temperature went up from 1976 to 1998, and
(3) Average temperature went down from 1998
through 2014
.
CO2 levels do not correlate with average temperature:
(A) The fastest rise of manmade CO2 in history was from 1941 to 1976, but according to surface measurements the average temperature went down, not up.
.
(B) There was a large rise of manmade CO2 from 1998 through 2013, but according to accurate, global, weather satellite measurements, the average temperature went down, not up.
.
(C) Manmade CO2 in the atmosphere is claimed to increase every year, but there has been no correlation with the average temperature, which had both increases and declines:
.
1860 to 1875 = average temperature up for 15 years
1875 to 1890 = down for 15 years
1890 to 1903 = up for 13 years
1903 to 1918 = down for 15 years
1918 to 1941 = up for 23 years
1941 to 1976 = down for 35 years
1976 to 1998 = up for 22 years
1998 to date = down for 15 years so far
Note: 1860 to 1978 were measured using non-global surface thermometers – 1979 and after were measured using global, and much more accurate, weather satellites
.
.
.
.
Everything we know about our recent average temperature using real time measurements:
.
(1)
Earth’s surface is believed to be roughly one degree C. warmer than in 1880, and
.
(2)
Measurement errors could account for a large percentage of the measured warming prior to 1940:
.
- 1800’s-era thermometers tended to read low, and
.
- Measurements were far from global, and were distorted by economic growth / building in the vicinity of many land-based temperature stations, distorting their measurements over time.
.
(3)
The current long-term temperature trend is unknown because we have only 34 years of accurate global average temperature data.
.
Global average temperatures could not be measured accurately until 1979, when weather satellites were first launched.
.
.
.
.
.
Everything that has ever happened on Earth has been accompanied by climate change !
.
Before you believe Al Gore’s ridiculous scary climate predictions: Consider the fact that Gore took only two science courses in college, getting a “D” in Natural Sciences 6 (“Man’s Place in Nature”), and a “C+” in Natural Sciences 118, as reported by the Washington Post in 2000.
.
In the 1990s the 'greens' claimed their computer models proved Arctic ice would be melted after a decade or two of global warming.
.
After an unusually cold 2013/2014 winter, with a lot of Arctic ice, the 'greens' claimed the unusually cold weather was a symptom of global warming too!
.
Do they think the general public is too stupid to understand unusually cold weather is never a symptom of global warming?
.
Yes, that's exactly what they think.
.
.
Climate change is 99% politics and 1% science:
In the 1960’s climate scientist Roger Revelle ( Al Gore’s science hero ) discovered government grants would flow his way if he predicted a coming climate change disaster, and never expressed any doubt about it.
.
Roger Revelle was the grandfather of the climate change cult -- his work was the foundation for the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). . The 'coming climate catastrophe' scam was adopted by leftists as a political tool (a 'crisis') to help them reach their century-old goal (they want to greatly expand government power, weaken private corporations through higher taxes and more regulations, and tell others how to live).
.
Climate change cult members pat themselves on the back for the following bogus claim:
'We are trying to save the Earth'
…while many climate change cult leaders fly to climate conferences all over the world on private jets!
.
With their bizarre focus on demonizing the airborne fertilizer CO2, most 'greens' pay little attention to real environmental problems, such as the gross pollution in China.
.
Government grants for climate study go to "scientists" who predict a coming climate catastrophe -- scary predictions are very profitable.
.
The prediction of a coming climate change catastrophe is a scam used by leftists to promote their century-old anti-capitalism, anti-economic growth, anti-prosperity agenda.
.
Leftist politicians joined the climate change cult because they want new taxes on corporate CO2 emissions, or energy use, to gain more power over corporations, and raise tax revenues to fund their beloved welfare state in a way that won't affect individual paychecks.
.
When politicians are involved, truth is not important.
.
The "greens" hate economic growth and prosperity. That's why they hate the foundation of economic growth: inexpensive sources of energy such as oil, coal, and nuclear power. The "greens" recently began hating natural gas too (fracking).
.
"Alternative" energy sources the greens' prefer, solar and wind power, are intermittent, low density, sources -- they are very expensive even with massive taxpayer subsidies.
.
Alternative energy zealots conveniently forget to mention the sun and wind won't produce power without sunshine or wind -- windless nights would have no electric power at all unless the power company had backup natural gas and coal power plants -- a huge expense for their customers!
.
.
.
Summary of Earth’s Recent Climate History:
600 to 200 BC = Cold period
200BC to 600 AD = “Roman Warming”
600 to 900 = Cold period (aka “The Dark Ages”)
900 to 1300 = “Medieval Warming”
1300 to 1850 = “Little Ice Age”
1850 to date = “Modern Warming”
.
Based on the evidence available so far, manmade CO2 is a minor factor in global warming -- possibly too small to measure.
.
The warming since 1850 has been beneficial for both humans and green plants.
.
It makes sense to want more CO2 in the air, not less:
.
(1)
The optimum CO2 level for green plant growth is in the 1,000 to 1,500 ppm range often used inside greenhouses to accelerate plant growth ( compared with the current outdoor level of just under 400 ppmv )
.
(2)
CO2 enrichment is also used in salt water fish tanks to accelerate plant and coral growth.
.
There's no scientific proof manmade CO2 causes global warming, but there's lots of proof a higher level of atmospheric CO2 accelerates green plant growth and reduces green plant water requirements.
.
Green plants are used for food, so accelerating green plant growth is wonderful news for humans who are malnourished or starving (of course the 'greens' could not care less about problems in poor nations).
.
Actual global warming measured by satellites since 1979 has been mainly during winter nights in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere -- that's good news for the few people who live there!
.
There's no logical data-based reason to demonize CO2, and several good reasons to favor more CO2 in the atmosphere.
.
The claim that manmade CO2 is the main cause of climate change, while large changes in other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are not important, is obviously not science.
.
There is evidence of local climate change in the Arctic, most likely caused by dark soot on Arctic ice and snow from people burning coal and wood in the Northern Hemisphere, causing more solar energy absorption than clean snow and ice would absorb.
.
That local warming is not dangerous to humans, will not increase sea level, and could eventually uncover beneficial oil and gas deposits in the Arctic.
.
As we suffered through an unusually cold 2013 / 2014 winter, climate change cult members were "tap dancing" like Johnny Carson used to do after telling a bad joke, trying to make us forget they've spent decades predicting unusually cold winters would never happen again!
.
The climate change cult uses wild guess computer game predictions of the future climate to get government grants, scare people, and gain power over their lives.
.
Only gullible people take predictions of the future climate seriously.
.
.
.
Details
"In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.
.
After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.
.
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
.
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model …"
Patrick Moore, PhD
Co-founder of Greenpeace
.
.
“Twentieth century temperature changes show a strong
correlation with the Sun’s changing energy output”.
Sallie Baliunas, PhD
PhD in astrophysics from Harvard University
.
.
“Today, we finally have the ice cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmite analyses to document the 1,500-year climate cycle. We have the satellite readings on the sun’s variability. We’ve documented the atmospheric heat vent over “warm pool” of the Pacific. If we objectively list the strengths and weaknesses of the two concepts on the same page, the Greenhouse Theory looks woefully weak. The 1,500-year climate cycle looks much more convincing.”
S. Fred Singer, PhD
PhD in physics -- Princeton University
and Dennis T. Avery,
from page 229 of their book:
“Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years”
.
.
.
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into a hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD
MIT Professor of Atmospheric Sciences,
ember of the National Academy of Sciences,
and former lead author,
U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
.
.
“ … developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
Ottmar Edenhofer
Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin, co-chair of Working group III of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Deputy Director and Chief Economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and Fellow of the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg, Germany.
.
.
“Environmentalism is an urban religion disconnected from nature, or rural life, or the realities of food and mineral production. This environmental religion is terrified of doubt, skepticism and uncertainty yet claims to be underpinned by science. … Like many fundamentalist religions, it attracts believers by announcing apocalyptic calamities unless we change our ways. … Logic, questioning or contrary data are not permitted.” Professor Ian Plimer
(from page 463 and 464 of his book: “Heaven and Earth”)
Plimer was a two-time winner of Australia’s highest scientific honor, the Eureka Prize, and a professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide.
.
.
.
The ECONOMIST magazine, on Climate Change
The ECONOMIST is a pro-European style socialism weekly magazine I've been reading for decades. I don't recall ever reading anything like the following words, from an October 5, 2013 leader (editorial) on the latest work of fiction from the IPCC.
.
Here's the entire first paragraph from the leader:
"In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of scientists, said the glaciers of the Himalayas could melt by 2035. This was complete fiction. It also said global surface temperatures would go on rising by about 0.2 degrees C. a decade for the next 20 years. They have been more or less flat since 1998. The IPCC has now issued its sextennial check-up on the health of the global climate. Why would anyone believe what they say?"
Later in the leader they wrote:
"The decade-and-a-half to 2013 was unusual because it also saw a big rise in carbon-dioxide emissions, which, all things being equal, should have pushed up temperatures everywhere, and didn't." . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Many Earth Cycles Affect Climate:
100,000-year elliptical orbit cycle
41,000-year axial tilt cycle
23,000-year precession (wobble) cycle
1,500-year solar-driven climate cycle
.
The 1,500-year (+/-500 years) Dansgaard-Oeschger global climate cycle has existed on Earth for up to one million years, in times when atmospheric CO2 was high, and in times when atmospheric CO2 was low.
.
This 1,500-year climate cycle was discovered by scientists Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger using Greenland ice cores, and by scientist Claude Lorius working independently with Antarctic ice cores – the three men shared the 1996 Tyler Prize (“environmental Nobel Prize”).
.
The accuracy of “global” temperature measurements before weather satellites were launched in 1979 is suspect, but we’ve most likely been in a mild warming phase since 1850.