No one called themselves
a "climate scientist" in the
late 1950's, when PhD
oceanographer Roger Revelle
first became concerned
about adding CO2
to the atmosphere
by burning fossil fuels.
Under Revelle's directorship,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
in San Diego participated in, and later
became the principal center for the
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Program.
There had been no greenhouse effect
caused warming yet, but a 1957
Hans Suess - Roger Revelle paper
suggested that increasing human
gas emissions might change that.
They concluded most added CO2
had been absorbed by the
Earth's oceans, contrary to older
assumptions that it would simply
accumulate in the upper atmosphere
and increase the average temperature
near the earth's surface.
A November 1957 report in
The Hammond Times
described Revelle's research
as: "a large scale global warming,
with radical climate changes may result" –
the first use of the term global warming.
My full article on Roger Revelle is here:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/roger-revelle-originator-of-coming.html
My full article on Roger Revelle is here:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/04/roger-revelle-originator-of-coming.html
Other articles in the same journal
discussed carbon dioxide levels too,
but the Suess - Revelle paper was
"the only one, of three, to stress
rising CO2 levels that might cause
global warming over time."
Significant amounts of CO2 were
added to the atmosphere after 1940,
accelerating after 1950.
The keepers of temperature data,
who are government bureaucrats
I do not trust, claim about
+0.6 degrees C. of global warming
in the 78 years from 1940
through the end of 2018,
a global warming rate of
+0.77 degrees C. per century.
Almost all scientists claim every
+10% increase of the CO2 level should
have a smaller greenhouse warming
effect than the prior +10% increase.
So common sense would say the
warming rate in the next 78 years
is likely to be less than the
warming rate in the past 78 years.
But that's not what the climate
alarmists have been predicting,
since the 1970's.
They have been predicting about
+3 degrees global warming per century,
which is almost quadruple the actual
global warming rate in the past 78 years.
They give no explanations for their grossly
inaccurate predictions since the 1970s,
never change their "formula", and never
even admit their predictions have been
100% wrong for over three decades.
The mainstream media publishes every
scary climate change prediction, but
never goes back to examine whether
the older predictions were correct
-- in fact, 100% of
scary predictions
about the climate,
and every other
environmental issue
since DDT
in the early 1960's,
has been wrong !
Wrong predictions are junk science.
Successful predictions are the
gold standard of real science.
Our planet has cooled a lot since
the age of the dinosaurs.
It warmed a lot since 20,000
years ago, when Canada, Chicago
and Detroit were covered by thick
ice glaciers.
It cooled a few degrees since
about 10,000 years ago --
the Holocene Optimum.
It warmed at least +2 degrees C.,
and possibly +3 degrees C.,
since the coldest period of the
Little Ice Age, in the late 1600s.
That mild warming has not stopped
for over 300 years, but it has been
good news, and I hope it doesn't stop
any time soon.
Warming slowed to near zero from
early 2003 through 2018 -- less than
the margin of error claimed for the
UAH weather satellite measurements.
Scientists called that period the “pause”,
or “hiatus”.
There's little public support in the US
for expensive measures to "fight"
climate change, as if there was
anything the US could do, acting alone.
Activists responded by making
scarier predictions, such as claiming:
"the future climate is going to be
even worse than we thought."
Left wing activists exaggerate
the already scary predictions
made by people with science degrees,
who are creating permanent job security
for themselves, with their scary predictions.
Left wing journalists print whatever the
left-wing activists tell them, without
questions, adding even scarier headlines !
Climate scientists remain silent
when activists exaggerate their work,
and headlines exaggerate the activist's
press releases even more !
All involved are fast to condemn skeptics.
Recent "studies"
( wild guesses of the
future climate,
almost certainly wrong )
appear designed to produce "scary
campfire story" headlines that the
mainstream media loves to print.
The climate scaremongers, with
their 100-year climate predictions,
have no fear of ever being
proven wrong in their lifetimes !
We should be celebrating
our wonderful current climate !
But the miserable leftists are
never happy unless they have
a crisis to fight, whether a
real crisis, or a fake crisis
like the coming global warming
‘catastrophe ( that will never come ).
Having a crisis, even a fake crisis
such as "climate change",
allows leftists to virtue signal:
“We’re trying to save the planet
for the children !”
Leftists love a crisis, and virtue signaling,
and they especially love telling everyone
how to live.
And they don't care if it's a fake crisis
built on a foundation of junk science:
Fake data, rigged peer-reviews,
and endless cherry-picking of data,
and endless cherry-picking of data,
presented without context.
Political, agenda-driven junk science
is designed to frighten the uninformed,
through subjective, guilt-inducing
propaganda.
Over the decades the mainstream
liberal media has become more
sympathetic towards all scary
climate change claims.
They report only
those observations
supporting “consensus”
climate change, and make
character attacks on people
who don't see a coming
climate change catastrophe.
Twisting information to fit
a desired conclusion
is propaganda,
not journalism.
People living in Ukraine and Belarus.
were told repeatedly by “experts”
that the Chernobyl radiation release
would kill tens of thousands of them,
horrible deaths of radiation-induced
sicknesses, cancers, and their children
were going to be born deformed.
The predictions were 100% wrong.
But people living there were frightened
because the “experts” and the media
wanted attention.