I must ask the hardcore Warmists what evidence they have to believe that "we have created a catastrophic future that demands wrenching lifestyle changes and economic hardship"?
The HARD evidence we had was ALL from the ClimateGate folks, and is now shown to be fraudulent. Gore's alarmism was found to be so over-the-top, his documentary cannot be shown in English schools without a caveat pointing out 11 exaggerations that have no basis in science or fact. What is left are anecdotes of changing ecosystems, retreating glaciers and drowning polar bears.
The other story here besides the politicization of science is the complicity of the media, because the hardcore probably have never heard from sources they read all the time the prior two assertions; yet both are factual. Case in point: the core conspirator, Phil Jones of CRU, had a BBC interview and Q&A in which he essentially admitted climate fraud when the confessed that the 20th century rise in warming may have not been unprecedented. Big news in the UK, but not one mention in the US mainstream media. Consequently, if you are a hardcore warmist, since your media sources have not published those two assertions, you will be inclined to dismiss them.
You will likely fail this simple test: here are two warming periods, one accepted as natural and the other claimed to be man-made. Phil Jones just admitted that are statistically similar. Which one is the period of man-made warming?
What I believe is what is non controversial by both sides in the scientific debate:
- We have been warming up for 250 years, since the Little Ice Age
- The rate of warming has averaged about 0.8C degrees/century
- We are not yet as warm as we were during the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period
- Earlier in the 20th Century we warmed up about as fast as in 20 years as we just did from 1975 to 1995, and we got to about the same levels
- We then fell for 30 years so much that the climate scientists were worried over Global Cooling
- The warmest decade in the past 100 years was the '30s not the last ten years, although they are close
- Since 2001 we have plateaued and since 2007 have begun cooling off
So far there is no basis for alarmism. All the anecdotes about polar bears or hurricanes or ice levels can be explained by the general warming for 250 years. Most of the melt of Alpine glaciers happened 150 years ago. Most of the snows on Kilimanjaro melted 100 years ago. Although we didn't measure as well then as today, we had ships in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1940s claiming the Northwest Passage was reopening due to ice melt. Then it froze up again in the '60s and 70s.
Within the 250 year warming there are shorter term cycles up and down, the most prominent is a 60 year oscillation of 30 up years and 30 down years. It has been in an up swing since 1975, and now is on a downswing.
During the upswing it increased
warming faster than the 250-year trendline. The climate models use the up
period to extrapolate their alarmism. In effect they made their models
fit the 1980-89 period where we had faster warming than trendline, and
expected it to continue like that for 100 years. Instead it has
plateaued and begun falling. As a consequence EVERY climate model
extrapolation since 1989 has overstated actual warming. They modify them
all the time, and they always end up predicting predicting more than
happened. This is a flaw of the methodology to take a short-term upswing
and extrapolate.
A slight warming of 0.8 degrees/century is nothing to worry about. Indeed, the world was more prosperous during the two prior warm periods. We might be better off warmer. A warmer climate can support more biomass. During the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), we grew wine in England up to Hadrian's Wall, and raised cattle in Greenland who fed on fields of grass. Not today. No wonder the Climate Cabal worked to hard to get rid of the MWP in their completely debunked hockey stock construction:
What about Co2? The complicit media has not told the full story on Co2. Again the following is not controversial among climate scientists:
- Co2 is a trace atmospheric gas and a modest greenhouse gas (GHG)
- By itself it doesn't make much warming
- It has only increased by about 30% during the last 200 years (from 280 ppm to 388 ppm)
- Given the current pace of increased Co2 of 2 ppm/yr, it would take close to 200 years to double if nothing were done
- If it were to double from 388 ppm to 777 ppm, Co2 (by itself) would increase global temperatures by around 2F degrees or 1.2C degrees
- An increase of that small an amount is nothing to be feared; indeed it would likely make the world a better place
All the climate models require amplification of Co2 to create more warming. The primary two amplifiers are water vapor (which includes clouds) & methane. Water vapor is 25 times more prevalent in the atmosphere than Co2, and is 3x stronger as a GHG. Methane is measure in ppb (parts per billion) not ppm, and is a very trace gas. It has a stronger GHG effect than Co2, but is barely there at all.
The amplification can be estimated through measurements, and what we have found so far is it does not occur. As Co2 increases in the troposphere, humidity (water vapor) has been decreasing. Methane is supposed to be increasing due to melting tundra, but has been plateauing instead. So we cannot measure amplification.
Recent studies actually show the opposite, that instead of amplifying Co2 the climate system de-amplifies it through negative feedback. This is a good thing as otherwise we would have become a hothouse like Venus hundreds of millions of years ago when Co2 levels were 10x higher than now.
The worst part of the Climate Change story is the scandal around the corruption of science. A lot of the emails in ClimateGate show the climate cabal behind it KNEW that the warming had plateaued and KNEW that their models were not working. Yet instead of coming clean and acting like objective scientists, they got down & dirty, interfered with the peer review process, suppressed contrary evidence, and committed fraud - a fraud on the whole world.
Recent Comments