The real science deniers
are those people
who accept
unproven theories,
and computer models,
that are contradicted
by actual temperature
observations
( "observations" = measurements ).
The science deniers
always believe in scary
FUTURE climate change,
based on unproven theories
baked into their
climate computer games,
but they've ignored
PAST climate change,
since 1940:
Mild, harmless, intermittent
measured warming,
that contradicts
their scary predictions!
Chicago was covered
by ice 20,000 years ago.
The ice has melted,
mainly from 20,000
to 10,000 years ago,
and the temperature
became good enough for
a huge city to develop.
That's 20,000 years
of good climate news.
And the slight night time
warming in the past
138 years, was even
more good news.
In summary, PAST
global warming was
100% good news.
But, there are
many people
who claim
the FUTURE
global warming
will be 100%
bad news !
They have been
warning us about
rapid global warming
since the 1970's, and
they have been wrong.
There had been mild warming
from 1975 to 1998, mainly
warmer winter nights,
in the northern half of the
Northern Hemisphere.
But since 1998,
global warming
slowed to a crawl --
statistically insignificant,
using weather satellite data.
So, what are you
going to believe,
(A), or (B) ?
(A)
Real observations /
measurements
of the PAST average
temperature
of our planet since 1880,
along with geological
reconstructions
of the temperature
in the past 800,000 years
using Antarctica
ice cores ?
or
(B)
Wild guess speculation
about the FUTURE
average temperature,
based on a 1970's theory,
that has been contradicted
by actual temperature
measurements over the
past 30 years?
Real science
requires you
to use / believe
real data, (A),
even when those
measurements
are quite rough,
especially before
World War II,
and real time
measurements
only include
the past 138 years,
which is a very tiny
percentage of Earth's
4.5 billion year history.
With junk science,
it is REQUIRED
that you believe (B),
which means
using the same
1970's theory,
to make the same
predictions,
for 30 years in a row,
even though those
global warming
predictions were for
triple the global warming
that actually happened !
With junk science,
there also seems to be
a three-decade long
scary story-telling contest,
to create the scariest
fairy tale about a coming
climate catastrophe,
( that will never come ),
and when real dingbats
such as AOC declare
the end of the world,
in twelve years,
from climate change,
fellow radical leftists
blindly cheer her on !
The theory used for (B)
requires existence of a
of tropical “hot spot”
in the atmosphere
-- which would be
strong evidence of
a water vapor positive
feedback response
greatly amplifying
greenhouse warming
from CO2 alone.
( please read the next article
for details about the "hot spot" ).
The theory is that
water vapor feedback
would triple the warming
EXPECTED to be caused
by CO2 alone, and would
make Earth's climate unstable
-- leading to runaway
global warming.
Does that sound scary ?
The intention is to scare people !
In reality,
the theory
of water vapor
positive feedback,
is a tall pile
of steaming
farm animal
digestive
waste products !
And here are
four reasons why:
(1)
In 60 years
of weather balloon
measurements,
no "hot spot"
was ever found,
(2)
In 40 years
of weather satellite
measurements,
no "hot spot"
was ever found,
(3)
There's no geologic evidence
of runaway warming in Earth's
4.5 billion year history, even
though CO2 levels were higher
than today most of the time,
up to 10x to 20x higher, and
(4)
Measurements of actual
global warming since 1940,
which is the beginning of
the "era of man made CO2",
reflect mild, intermittent
warming, and the rate
of global warming has been
very slow after 1998.
( statistically insignificant )
But never mind
the reality of
(1) through (4)
-- the water vapor
positive feedback
theory is included
in climate models,
and that's
a major issue
for climate science.
Believing in a mysterious,
invisible water vapor
positive feedback
that triples the warming
EXPECTED from CO2 alone,
( warming from CO2 is assumed, not proven )
causes the climate models
to predict triple the warming
that actually happens!
The climate models
have no predictive skill !
For the past three decades,
climate models overestimated
the measured warming
by 2.5x to 3x times !
So there's no logical
reason to pay any attention
to climate model forecasts
... but they're still used,
and treated like the gospel
by the global warmunists !
There are two types
of scientific information:
(1)
Theories,
and
(2)
Observations
You should believe observations
because they are based
on measurements and data:
-- Observations of greening
of the planet, for example,
are visible to satellites.
-- Global warming
since 1940,
for another example,
has been measured.
But ...
the measurements
of mild overall warming,
from 1940 through 2018,
happened to include two long
periods with little or no warming,
in spite of CO2 levels
rising almost every year
since 1940:
(a)
NO global warming,
from 1940 to 1975,
and
(b)
Insignificant warming,
from 1998 through 2018,
The theories of dangerous
global warming, and matching
computer game predictions,
have obviously been WRONG
for the past three decades.
There's no reason
to believe that
they will EVER provide
RIGHT predictions !
Scientists do not have
the tools, or data, to:
(1)
Determine
what percentage
of global warming
since 1940, if any,
was caused
by man made
greenhouse
gases,
or to
(2)
Make credible
predictions
of 21st century
climate change.
The unproven claim
by the UN's IPCC for (1),
is that humans
caused "over 50%"
of the global warming
after 1950 -- but that's
just their wild guess.
We know the "right number"
is between 0% and 100%,
but that doesn't mean
a wild guess of "over 50%"
is even close to being right !
Unproven, wild guesses
and scary fairy tales
of the future climate,
are junk science,
not real science.
Especially when the
wild guesses
and fairy tales
ALWAYS turn out
to be wrong !