The most important points
about climate change,
based on real science,
that you'll never read
in the mainstream media:
Humans have been adding
a lot of CO2 to the air
for your entire life, unless
you are over 78 years old !
The global average temperature
has had three different trends,
since 1940:
cooling from 1940 to 1975,
warming from 1975 to 1998, and
a flat trend from 1998 through 2018.
So does CO2 cause cooling,
warming, or a flat trend ?
We've had all three different
trends as CO2 rose in every
decade.
Climate science
is far from
being settled.
We humans have
a lot of experience
living in, and
observing,
climate change.
From 1940 through 2018,
there was mild warming
only 1/3 of the time.
But warming, from 1975
to 1998, exceeded the
cooling, from 1940
through 1975.
There wasn't enough warming,
over the past 78 years,
for anyone to notice
without being prompted by
hysterical leftists crying wolf
every year !
Climate change in
our lifetimes has
always been
good news.
In fact, global warming
has been good news
for over 300 years,
since the 1690s
— central England
temperatures are up
about +3 degrees C.,
from the coldest year
in the 1690s
— and everyone
loved the warming !
Some people
will want to ignore
much of the past
300 years of warming,
because there was
little man made
CO2 being added
to the atmosphere
before 1940.
So let's consider
the global warming
after 1940 -- that was
good news too !
There was roughly
+0.6 degrees C.
of global warming
in 78 years.
( using UAH satellite data since 1979 ).
That's a harmless
global warming rate,
of about +0.8 degrees
per CENTURY.
And there’s even
more good news:
— Our planet is greening
from more CO2 in the air,
for the same reason that
greenhouse owners use
CO2 enrichment systems
inside their greenhouses
( I call that the "Real Greenhouse Effect" ).
A recent study suggests
even more global greening
than previously estimated.
My summary of that
2019 science study,
written a few days ago,
includes links to the study,
and supporting studies,:
The actual warming
since 1979 is most useful
to study because
of higher data quality --
of higher data quality --
it was measured
with weather satellites,
which provide
near-global coverage,
completely unlike surface
temperature measurements
used by climate alarmists
used by climate alarmists
Satellite measured warming
has been mainly in areas,
and at times, that have been
BENEFICIAL for people
living there ( mainly at high,
cold latitudes, mainly in the
coldest six months of the year,
and mainly at night ! )
A single global average temperature
obscures all that good news
— that’s one reason it’s used !
One number does not fairly describe
the climate of an entire planet
— especially because NO ONE
actually lives in the average climate !
The global average temperature
is not a temperature that can be
measured — it's a statistic
that could be calculated
in hundreds of ways.
And there's no way to determine
which global average temperature
compilation is best.
People live in local climates.
Local temperatures,
that people work and live in,
may be important, if they
significantly change.
If people are ever hurt
by climate change,
it will be from changes
in local temperatures,
that affect their lives,
which may not even
be visible in the global
average temperature.
Of course, no one
even knows what a
“normal” global average
temperature is.
The concept of “normal”
actually makes no sense,
for a planet like Earth,
that's not in thermodynamic
equilibrium.
Only a fool would observe
past global warming, since the
Little Ice Age’s Maunder Minimum
period, coldest in the 1690s
based on central England
temperatures, and then claim
there's a climate “problem” now.
Anyone who believes past
climate change has been
a problem, is WRONG,
and I challenge them
to clearly explain
what real problems,
affected real people?
( not imaginary computer
model “problems” ).
It is not impossible
to predict
the future climate:
We can predict that the
global average temperature
will vary in the future.
We can predict
the current mild
Holocene Interglacial
will end in the future.
Until that time,
we can observe what
has happened since
we started adding
a lot of CO2 to the
atmosphere,
after 1940,
and assume mild,
harmless warming
will continue.
If we assume actual
global warming
since 1940
was caused
only by CO2
( as a worst case estimate ),
and we continue
adding CO2
to the atmosphere,
the actual warming rate
from 1940 to 2018
suggests a future
warming rate
of less than
+1 degree C. of
global warming
in the next 100 years.
And that would be
harmless warming,
especially if the
beneficial locations,
and timing, of past
global warming,
continue in the future.
To claim that
we can’t predict
the future climate,
suggests that we
know nothing about
climate change.
That’s not correct.
Of course we can't be sure
of the future climate.
But we do have 78 years
of experience with adding
CO2 to the atmosphere.
And we have real time
( although imperfect )
temperature measurements
for the whole 78 years.
Why not assume that
PAST global warming rates,
from 1940 through 2018,
will continue in the FUTURE ?
There's no logical reason
to assume anything else !
I’d call that a simple prediction.
There’s no logical reason
to predict FUTURE warming
will be a lot DIFFERENT
than PAST global warming,
unless your primary goal
is to scare people.
Yet the predictions made by
the climate scaremongers,
in every year since the 1970s,
on average, are for a
FUTURE global
warming rate that is
quadruple the actual
global warming rate
from 1940 through 2018 !
And those scary predictions
have been WRONG every year.
And now I’ll describe
the REAL climate change
problem, based on a quote
from my second favorite
philosopher, “perfesser”
Groucho Marx:
The coming climate
change catastrophe,
only coming in overactive
leftist imaginations,
for over 60 years,
is NOT coming, and is
NOT a problem at all.
The real problem is
gross overreactions
to what has actually
been pleasant,
beneficial
global warming
for 300+ years.
We've had mild beneficial
global warming for 300+ years,
that no one in their right mind
should want to stop !
Groucho Marx
understood politics:
“Politics is the art
of looking for trouble,
finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly,
and applying the wrong remedies.”
And that's exactly what's wrong
with the Climate Change Cult
/ Religion / Movement,
or whatever you want to call it.
Here on the Honest Global
Warming Chart blog,
I call climate change
scaremongering:
"science fraud"
Because it is.
scaremongering:
"science fraud"
Because it is.