The Globe Has Not Been Warming . . .
So Why Is It Called ‘Global’ Warming?
There were at least 60 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2016 demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
As of the end of January, another 17 papers had already been published in 2017. 17 New (2017) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Is Not Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable
Within the last month, another 14 papers have been published that continue to cast doubt on the popularized conception of an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years. In other words, there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of natural variability.
Goursaud et al., 2017
Wilson et al., 2017
Cai and Liu et al., 2017
“2003– 2009 was the warmest period in the reconstruction. 1970– 2000 was colder than the last stage of the Little Ice Age (LIA).”
Tegzes et al., 2017
“The objective of this study was to investigate northward oceanic heat transport in the NwASC [Norwegian Atlantic Slope Current] on longer, geologically meaningful time scales. To this end, we reconstructed variations in the strength of the NwASC over the late-Holocene using the sortable-silt method. We then analysed the statistical relationship between our palaeo-flow reconstructions and published upper-ocean hydrography proxy records from the same location on the mid-Norwegian Margin. Our sortable-silt time series show prominent multi-decadal to multi-centennial variability, but no clear long-term trend over the past 4200 years. … [O]ur findings indicate that variations in the strength of the main branch of the Atlantic Inflow may not necessarily translate into proportional changes in northward oceanic heat transport in the eastern Nordic Seas.”
Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017
“The abrupt climatic transition of the early 20th century and the 25-year warm period 1925–1950 triggered the main retreat and volume loss of these glaciers since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’. Meanwhile, cooling during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s altered the trend, with advances of the glacier snouts.”
Tejedor et al., 2017
Guillet et al., 2017
Köse et al., 2017
“The reconstruction is punctuated by a temperature increase during the 20th century; yet extreme cold and warm events during the 19th century seem to eclipse conditions during the 20th century. We found significant correlations between our March–April spring temperature reconstruction and existing gridded spring temperature reconstructions for Europe over Turkey and southeastern Europe. … During the last 200 years, our reconstruction suggests that the coldest year was 1898 and the warmest year was 1873. The reconstructed extreme events also coincided with accounts from historical records. … Further, the warming trends seen in our record agrees with data presented by Turkes and Sumer (2004), of which they attributed [20th century warming] to increased urbanization in Turkey. Considering long-term changes in spring temperatures, the 19th century was characterized by more high-frequency fluctuations compared to the 20th century, which was defined by more gradual changes and includes the beginning of decreased DTRs [diurnal temperature ranges] in the region (Turkes and Sumer, 2004).”
Flannery et al., 2017
“The early part of the reconstruction (1733–1850) coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age, and exhibits 3 of the 4 coolest decadal excursions in the record. However, the mean SST estimate from that interval during the LIA is not significantly different from the late 20th Century SST mean. The most prominent cooling event in the 20th Century is a decade centered around 1965. This corresponds to a basin-wide cooling in the North Atlantic and cool phase of the AMO.”
Mayewski et al., 2017
Rydval et al., 2017
“[T]he recent summer-time warming in Scotland is likely not unique when compared to multi-decadal warm periods observed in the 1300s, 1500s, and 1730s“
Reynolds et al., 2017
Rosenthal et al., 2017
“Here we review proxy records of intermediate water temperatures from sediment cores and corals in the equatorial Pacific and northeastern Atlantic Oceans, spanning 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. These records suggests that intermediate waters [0-700 m] were 1.5-2°C warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum than in the last century. Intermediate water masses cooled by 0.9°C from the Medieval Climate Anomaly to the Little Ice Age. These changes are significantly larger than the temperature anomalies documented in the instrumental record. The implied large perturbations in OHC and Earth’s energy budget are at odds with very small radiative forcing anomalies throughout the Holocene and Common Era. … The records suggest that dynamic processes provide an efficient mechanism to amplify small changes in insolation [surface solar radiation] into relatively large changes in OHC.”
Li et al., 2017
“We suggest that solar activity may play a key role in driving the climatic fluctuations in NC [North China] during the last 22 centuries, with its quasi ∼100, 50, 23, or 22-year periodicity clearly identified in our climatic reconstructions. … It has been widely suggested from both climate modeling and observation data that solar activity plays a key role in driving late Holocene climatic fluctuations by triggering global temperature variability and atmospheric dynamical circulation“
Dong et al., 2017
Nazarova et al., 2017
“The application of transfer functions resulted in reconstructed T July fluctuations of approximately 3 °C over the last 2800 years. Low temperatures (11.0-12.0 °C) were reconstructed for the periods between ca 1700 and 1500 cal yr BP (corresponding to the Kofun cold stage) and between ca 1200 and 150 cal yr BP (partly corresponding to the Little Ice Age [LIA]). Warm periods (modern T[emperatures] July or higher) were reconstructed for the periods between ca 2700 and 1800 cal yr BP, 1500 and 1300 cal yr BP and after 150 cal yr BP.”
Samartin et al., 2017
Thienemann et al., 2017
“[P]roxy-inferred annual MATs[annual mean air temperatures] show the lowest value at 11,510 yr BP (7.6°C). Subsequently, temperatures rise to 10.7°C at 9540 yr BP followed by an overall decline of about 2.5°C until present (8.3°C).”
Li et al., 2017
“Contrary to the often-documented warming trend over the past few centuries, but consistent with temperature record from the northern Tibetan Plateau, our data show a gradual decreasing trend of 0.3 °C in mean annual air temperature from 1750 to 1970 CE. This result suggests a gradual cooling trend in some high altitude regions over this interval, which could provide a new explanation for the observed decreasing Asian summer monsoon. In addition, our data indicate an abruptly increased interannual-to decadal-scale temperature variations of 0.8 – 2.2 °C after 1970 CE, in terms of both magnitude and frequency, indicating that the climate system in high altitude regions would become more unstable under current global warming.”
Krawczyk et al., 2017
Kawahata et al., 2017
“The SST [sea surface temperature] shows a broad maximum (~17.3 °C) in the mid-Holocene (5-7 cal kyr BP), which corresponds to the Jomon transgression. … The SST maximum continued for only a century and then the SST [sea surface temperatures] dropped by 3.5 °C [15.1 to 11.6 °C] within two centuries. Several peaks fluctuate by 2°C over a few centuries.”
Saini et al., 2017
Dechnik et al., 2017
“[I]t is generally accepted that relative sea level reached a maximum of 1–1.5 m above present mean sea level (pmsl) by ~7 ka [7,000 years ago] (Lewis et al., 2013)”
Wu et al., 2017
“The alkenone-based SST reconstruction shows rapid warming in the first 1500 years of the Holocene … an increase of sea surface temperature from c. 23.0 °C to 27.0 °C, associated with a strengthened summer monsoon from c. 10,350 to 8900 cal. years BP. This was also a period of rapid sea-level rise and marine transgression, during which the sea inundated the palaeo-incised channel … In these 1500 years, fluvial discharge was strong and concentrated within the channel, and the high sedimentation rate (11.8 mm/yr [1.18 m per century]) was very close to the rate of sea-level rise.”
Sun et al., 2017
“[A]t least six centennial droughts occurred at about 7300, 6300, 5500, 3400, 2500 and 500 cal yr BP. Our findings are generally consistent with other records from the ISM [Indian Summer Monsoon] region, and suggest that the monsoon intensity is primarily controlled by solar irradiance on a centennial time scale. This external forcing may have been amplified by cooling events in the North Atlantic and by ENSO activity in the eastern tropical Pacific, which shifted the ITCZ further southwards. The inconsistency between local rainfall amount in the southeastern margin of the QTP and ISM intensity may also have been the result of the effect of solar activity on the local hydrological cycle on the periphery of the plateau.”
Wu et al., 2017
“Late Holocene climate change in coastal East Asia was likely driven by ENSO variation. Our tree pollen index of warmness (TPIW) shows important late Holocene cold events associated with low sunspot periods such as Oort, Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder Minimum. Comparisons among standard Z-scores of filtered TPIW, ΔTSI, and other paleoclimate records from central and northeastern China, off the coast of northern Japan, southern Philippines, and Peru all demonstrate significant relationships [between solar activity and climate]. This suggests that solar activity drove Holocene variations in both East Asian Monsoon (EAM) and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In particular, the latter seems to have predominantly controlled the coastal climate of East Asia to the extent that the influence of precession was nearly muted during the late Holocene.”
70 responses to “30 New (2017) Scientific Papers Crush The Hockey Stick Graph And ‘Global’-Scale Warming Claims”
From Tim at another blog, with some added bits.
Let’s see who the DENIERS are
What do you deny?
– That temperatures are not tracking predictions.
– That the only warming in the satellite era has come from El Nino events.
– That CO2 sensitivity keeps getting revised downwards. (eventually they will get to ZERO)
– That the Antarctic is not behaving as modelled.
– That the Arctic has been ice free before, and is still currently way above pre-LIA norms.
– That the arctic was predicted to be ice free NOW… poor Wadhams !
– That Global snow cover is increasing. (Was to be a thing of the past…)
– That Polar Bears are doing quite well.
– That Global Atmospheric Humidity is much higher than CAGW Theory requires. (No Hot Spot. You SAID there would be a Hot Spot.)
– That Natural Variations are powerful drivers of Climate. (Up until 2016 you said they weren’t and shrieked at any who disagreed with you. Now you say they are?)
– That Global Storm Energy is in a long decline.
– That a Trillion dollars can be spent on AGW research and not influence the minds of the AGW researchers, while saying that a few million can and does on the realist side.
– That the rate of Sea Level rise is not increasing.
– That wind power is inefficient and environmentally destructive throughout it’s supply and production chain.
– That large scale solar power is inefficient and environmentally destructive throughout it’s supply and production chain.
– That increasing atmospheric CO2 has ONLY positive benefits.
– That Science is not done by Consensus.
– That Peer Review is extremely fallible.
– That UHI is real and obvious.
– That several iterations of data adjustment have always moved the past down, and the present up. Every, single, time.
– That CO2 does not cause warming in a convective atmosphere.
Every one of these statements is SELF-EVIDENT.
Let’s see who DENIES the scientific FACTS, shall we 🙂
At last someone with ACCURATE knowledge on the subject ! You are a sight for sore eyes AndyG55 9 and I thank you for the simple way you present the Facts hopefully enlightening a few people as the shills are all over this STILL defending the GW scam as if their life depended on it. I haven’t read the comments yet but I can bet you any money you like that you are having a hard time with the GW gatekeepers AKA shill scum because as we know the shill and truth don’t mix.
At last someone with ACCURATE knowledge on the subject. You are a sight for sore eyes AndyG55 9 and I thank you for the simple way you present the Facts hopefully enlightening a few people as the shills are all over this STILL defending the AGW scam as if their life depended on it. I haven’t read the comments yet but I can bet you any money you like that you are having a hard time with the GW gatekeepers AKA shill scum because as we know the shill and truth don’t mix very well do they.
So I’ve read some comments and of course they are still fearmongering while raking in the profits… We need more like you AndyG55 9 !
Thank you… 🙂
Glad to see someone else that is awake to the truth.
And yes , there are two very brain-washed pieces of AGW shill scum regularly on this forum.
They DENY basically every fact about the reality of climate being essentially all NATURAL variability..
And are totally unable to support the very basis of their ugly, ill-begotten AGW religion.
Thank you for stating the subject so clearly! As a matter of fact those persons who “advocate” (“believing” can be OK…) are the ones who DENY science and the scientific method that we have been creating and improving for centuries (through war against superchery and superstition).
“So Why Is It Called ‘Global’ Warming?”
Its not.. they changed the name to “Climate Change”.
That’s because THEY KNEW that it was not warming.
So now, instead of NOT causing warming… CO2 caused this mythical, unsubstantiated, covers-every-eventuality, anti-science “climate change” farce.
sorry.. maybe it is “climate disruption” or “global weirding” now… who the heck would know !!!
Anyone want to guess the next farcical iteration?
AndyG55 9 They are very good with word manipulation aren’t they, ” its called this – no it isn’t its called that ” anything to distract us from the FACTS very clever shill tactic that people are starting to see right through.
“They are very good with word manipulation aren’t they”
No, not really.. any person with even half their brain working can see straight through them
They aim their propaganda at the MOST GULLIBLE, and fools like sob and seb fall for it every time, because they are so used to being spoon fed by others, and not thinking for themselves
It’s funny how a list of papers about the warming being not global (meaning it’s not warming everywhere) makes you think there is no warming at all.
No one thinks “there is no warming at all.” Since the 1990s, the Arctic had warmed substantially. Prior to that, it was cooling for ~40 years. Prior to that cooling, it was warming. So has there been warming? Yes. Has there been cooling? Yes. What do we call it when a region warms and cools in an oscillatory fashion like that?
AndyG55 clearly does as he has written just that in comment I replied to.
You really have COMPREHENSION issues, don’t you little worm.
There is NO CO2 warming signature in the satellite record. Only natural El Nino warming events
What is there that you are tooooo stupid to understand ???
“There is NO CO2 warming signature in the satellite record. Only natural El Nino warming events”
the el nino was warmer than stronger el ninos in the past. That is the CO2 effect.
you are always wrong.
And certainly at the time that “global warming” was changed to “climate change”
It was NOT WARMING.
No warming except from El Ninos.
No warming from 1980-1997.
No warming from 2001-2015.
Maybe for once you would stop DENYING them.
You really are the one of most PITIFUL and PATHETIC AGW shill, except maybe for sob.
Getting hard to tell which is dumb, and which is dumber.
“No warming except from El Ninos.”
you can not leave out el ninos. Your approach is total garbage.
and there is warming outside the el ninos. You are also totally wrong.
Hmmm indeed. Apparently SebastianH believes El Nino events only occurred during ’97-’98 and ’15-’16 in the satellite record. He has no idea that those were just the Super El Nino years….
“There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change,” said Tangang, who had served from 2008 to 2015 as vice-chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency.
“El Nino is a naturally occurring phenomenon, which is part of the inter-annual variability associated with oscillation of the atmosphere-ocean interaction in the Pacific Ocean that occurs in a two- to seven-year cycle.”
“That is the CO2 effect. ”
No, that is a solar effect.
CO2 CANNOT and DOES NOT effect ocean temperatures.
YOU are wrong as always, sob.. or is it seb.
dumber and dumbest.. and hard to tell which is which.
No seb, WRONG again
The full effect of the 1998 El Nino finished tat the start of 2001.
NO WARMING from 2001 to start of the 2015 El Nino
The linear trend in the 1980-1997 period is purely a remnant of the cyclic nature of the climate, and where the cycles begin and end’
I very much doubt you have the mathematical ability to even comprehend this, but I’ll try to give you a simple hint anyway.
What is the linear trend on this graph
There was no warming from 1980-1997.5 in either satellite record.
“you can not leave out el ninos.’
If you are looking for a CO2 signal, you HAVE to leave them out.
Are you really so dumb and scientifically illiterate that you can’t comprehend that FACT !!
“Since the 1990s, the Arctic had warmed substantially.”
Actually, its warmed since 1979, in line with the AMO.
Temperature data from small islands like Iceland show that. Here we see how closely the Reykjavik temperatures follow the AMO
But its now levelled off… in line with the AMO.
And over the next few years, it will start dropping again.. in line with the AMO.
And here are some temperature data from the wider Arctic region.
Same pattern again.
“And here are some temperature data from the wider Arctic region.”
you are wrong on everything again.
Both surface stations, ocean and satellite data show massive arctic warming.
cherry picking graphs that show cooling is anti science.
Poor sob… stepped right into the slime again, poor little child-mind.
Love the way you CHERRY-PICK the 1979 star, while ignoring the longer data…
So predictable ..
SO DUMB !!
Says the person who cherry picks 1979 — the coldest year in the last 100 — as the year to begin looking at temperature trends in the Arctic.
Here’s another NTZ graph (below link) that shows the larger context for the Arctic, sod. Did you intentionally exclude the 1920s-1940s warming, or was that accidental?
Quite bizarre, isn’t it K. 🙂
Poor little sob is the one doing the cherry-picking, where I show all data from several station.
Its almost as if he isn’t aware of the mockery he is making of himself. 🙂
do you like eating straw?
Strawman comments are boring.
By the way,you missed this:
“30 New (2017) Scientific Papers Crush The Hockey Stick Graph And ‘Global’-Scale Warming Claims”
May I ask where the “counterpoint” in that comment was? 😉
There was no need for a counterpoint..
… because, as usual, your post was POINTLESS.
Found that paper yet, little flopping mullet ??
poor little brain-washed puppet..
You are an inspiration to us all. I wish I could come up with constant insults like you do. It makes you look so mature and wise …
“I wish I could come up with constant insults ”
Your very presence here is a constant insult.
Run off, poor little small-minded AGW shill. !!
Oh, and really seb.. you came here SPECIFICALLY as a shill or troll for your baseless AGW scam/religion.
Stop being a sook and crying when someone kicks back.
Its PATHETIC. !!!
The SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE is about flat temperature trend since 1979. That is about 50% of the planets surface.
How come CO2 warm forcing effect,doesn’t work so well down there?
I’ve explained it to you before.. if you would only listen
The ONLY real warming in the satellite era has come from El Nino events and natural ocean currents.
There is not even a hint of any CO2 warming effect, NONE. !!
And you think El Nino events are just some random event happening from time to time and have nothing to do with build up of energy in the oceans? Hmm …
Here you go … RSS data (compiled of 13 different satellites to one time series) without El Ninos: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:1997.5/trend/plot/rss/from:1999.3/to:2015.6/trend/plot/rss
Does it look like no warming has occured?
Your ignorance shines through yet again
1980 – 1997.5 trend is from start and end point on the cycle. There is actually NO WARMING.
Your limited mathematical ability will not allow you to see this reality, will it seb.
The 1998 El Nino effect finished in 2001.
No warming from 2001 – 2015
You have to use that EL Nino to get a trend, don’t you little AGW shill.. so keep using them, and continue to prove me correct 🙂
Here’s a little task for seb
What is the trend on this graph
Let’s see if we can get a tiny bit of mathematical comprehension past his mindless brain-washing.
ps the end value at 360, is about 0.61
Nice load of FACTS and REAL DATA, K. 🙂
[…] 30 New (2017) Scientific Papers Crush The Hockey Stick Graph And „“Global-Scale Warming … […]
It appears that “global warming” is only occurring in those areas where homogenisation is in full swing.
Gee wizz, isn’t that a coincidence?
Terribly sorry but as NONE of these papers were highlighted either on the BBC or in the Guardian it’s obvious they don’t count and Mother Earth is still hurtling towards man made climate catastrophe oblivion.
Lots of reasons. Here’s a few that come to mind:
1) Virtually everything we do has a carbon footprint so, if they win, virtually everything we do will be regulated and controlled. Maybe even as far as having a chip installed in our buttocks that measures our gas emissions and dings our bank accounts accordingly.
2) Redistribute wealth to developing nations.
3) Global government.
4) Population reduction because as we develop developing nations, their fertility rates will drop.
5) To create new labor zones for companies looking to exploit the cheeps labor. That money used to build up developing nations will pay for economic infrastructure. When done, it’ll be profitable to move a factory in these countries.
Opps, typo in line 5 above. Meant to type:
5) To create new labor zones for companies looking to exploit the cheaper labor. That money used to build up developing nations will pay for economic infrastructure. When done, it’ll be profitable to move a factory in these countries.
“2) Redistribute wealth to developing nations.”
That will not happen as it should…
… a lot of it will go into the pockets of UN linked dictators and scammers… places like the Clinton Foundation.
I can show that pigs can fly with this method.
Here proof by one picture, ignoring the millions of other informations around.
So are you suggesting that any scientist who publishes a reconstruction showing that modern temperatures aren’t hockey-stick-shaped is effectively publishing fantasy and delusion non-science?
Ken, it is clear he has no counterpoint to offer against your blog post.
He is all wind and rain.
“So are you suggesting that any scientist who publishes a reconstruction showing that modern temperatures aren’t hockey-stick-shaped is effectively publishing fantasy and delusion non-science?”
no. I am suggesting that you are only looking at data points that support your position and you ignore everything else.
Like looking at that one picture of a pig in midair will leave you with the impression that pigs can fly.
Unfortunately Sod, you fail to support your claim.
That means you have nothing.
“Like looking at that one picture of a pig in midair”
little sob has been at the hallucinogenic mushrooms yet again, same ones seb uses, no doubt. !!
Must have picture of flying pigs around all his playroom walls… right sob!
They are occupying his tiny mind… all there is room for.
I guess he likes looking at pigs flying because they
are so suited to his baseless anti-CO2 AGW non-science.
timespentwasted.com is an appropriate summary of your life it seems.
poor seb, the poor little child-minded troll is still batting ZERO on this forum.
It can’t even support the very basis of the AGW scam/religion. Oh dear… so sad. !
poor sob, you are partaking in seb’s hallucinogenics again are you, worm-brain. !
Yogic flying I think.
[…] – 30 New (2017) Scientific Papers Crush The Hockey Stick Graph And ‘Global’-Scale Warming Claims […]
Trolls are not worth bothering about. They are unwilling to be convinced by argument because they would lose their reason for living, and perhaps they are being paid for each pointless retort?
They waste a lot of time and space on the internet.
And who do you think is described by your comment? Fits perfectly for AndyG55’s behavior …
Can’t be convinced, always wants to have the last word, has nothing but insults and fantasy physics to offer.
Poor seb, still searching in vain for a paper to prove the FANTASY of CO2 warming.
Seem you may had a some small amount of education, but never let it go to your head.
And there’s the poor leftie victimology again.. sob- sob, seb.
You come here PURPOSELY as a baseless, slimy, anti-science, anti-life, AGW propaganda shill/troll.
You know that.. but can’t even admit it to yourself.. sadly pathetic to say the least.
Then you expected to be treated like a real human-being?????
And please… stop you troll-like girlie whinging !!
That is a smoking gun of this manufactured crisis called global warming. NOAA/NASA/GISS adjust the composite data, they don’t go back and adjust the original data sources.There are countless individual data sources that show now warming from all around the world. The longest continual thermometer record in Central England, and it shows no warming since the mid-1600s.
Antarctica isn’t warming
Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists
[…] only charts that make the case for no warming over the past 350 years or even the entire Holocene. There is plenty of data that there has been no warming, that there was a Little Ice Age, that there was a Minoan, Roman and Post-Little Ice Age Warming, […]
Just wrote this follow up article. Thanks for the inspiration.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of Its Pieces
[…] – See more at: https://notrickszone.com/2017/03/09/30-new-2017-scientific-papers-crush-the-hockey-stick-graph-and-global-scale-warming-claims/#sthash.95i1sKwQ.BIMmj48e.dpuf […]
GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE PRIMER
Global Warming is Dead
The argument about global warming has morphed into climate change. This subtle shift was necessary because the warming as evidenced by satellite measurements has stopped since 1998, even while CO2 concentrations have continued to increase. It has become increasingly obvious CO2 is not driving the warming, the climate, or anything else.
The hysteria about melting ice caps, sea level rise, stronger storms, droughts, floods, forest fires, etc., has not materialized:
* ice continues to accumulate at record levels in the Antarctic wherein lies 90% of the world’s ice inventory. Meanwhile, the Arctic Ice Cap has survived decades of predictions of its demise.
* sea level rise according to Nils-Axil Morner, the world’s leading authority on sea level change, has not changed at all.
* annual accumulated cyclonic energy is at historical lows, as are the overall number and strength of hurricanes and tornadoes.
* Droughts and floods continue their march in tune with oceanic oscillations, such as, La Ninas and the Indian Ocean Dipole.
* Forest fire activity remains at the mercy of lightning strikes, underbrush stockpiles and interference with nature by humans.
Climate Change has no Evidence
There is not one piece of empirical evidence linking human activities to the climate – NOT ONE. The only arguments for climate change are anecdotes, computer projections, Hockey Sticks, and consensus.
* Anecdotes are short, obscure historical or biographical accounts. Anecdotes cannot be traced to one another or anything else. Anecdotes are not proof.
* Computer projections are Ludic fallacies based on dubious initial conditions. The computer projections have failed, because their only input is greenhouse gases. Computer projections are not proof.
* Hockey Sticks are the cobbling together of two unrelated proxy data sets. These FrankenGraphs, which would have received an “F” in JHS science class 50 years ago, are incredibly embraced by many scientists today. Hockey Sticks are artificial fabrications, not proof.
* Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. Millennia and centuries ago the consensus believed the Earth was the center of the Universe and Solar System. Consensus is not proof.
To the contrary, there is abundant evidence proving the climate has changed often and sometimes violently, all without any human influence.
The Historical Temperature Record
For the last 600,000,000 years temperatures have hovered around 12C about 14% of the time, around 22C about 50% of the time, and somewhere in between 36% of the time. Right now we are at 14.5C, about 25% above the bottom of the historical range. (Ref: Dr. Christopher R. Scotese‘s PALEOMAP Project at http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). We are no where near any temperature tipping point.
The 0.4C rise in temperature since the Industrial Revolution (IR) pales in comparison to the 1.6C increase of the Medieval Warming Period (WP), the 2.5C increase of the Roman WP, and the 3.2C increase of the Minoan WP using the IR as a baseline. The average temperature has been declining for the last 6,000 years. (Alley, R.B. 2000, The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, Quaternary Science Reviews, 19:213-226.) We are at the very end of the present 10,500 year old Interglacial WP. After this comes about 90,000 years of snow, ice, advancing glaciers and incredible loss of life. Enjoy the warmth while you can.
The Recent Temperature Record
The temperature data for the last 100 years has been twisted and contorted by scientists to comply with the global warming agenda. Under the guise of ‘homogenizing’ data sets, NOAA has chopped off the cooler temperatures of the late 1800s, thus making trends afterwards look warmer. Also, the percentage of fake temperature measurement stations since 1993 has increased from 5% to 43%, over an 800% increase. A new fake station was created in Africa which helped conclude that 2016 was the warmest year ever. This fake science from fake data has created an ever-increasing temperature record, when the satellite data says since 1998 there has been no warming at all.
The Historical CO2 Record
About 550,000,000 years ago CO2 was 7,000 ppm and has wound it‘s way down to where it is today, near it’s historic low (Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204, February 2001.) Below 100 ppm photosynthesis ceases. We are very close to the tipping point of Earth turning into a lifeless snowball with too little CO2 for plants to reproduce. On the other hand, plants thrive in nurseries kept at CO2 concentrations of 1,000 ppm. Thanks to recent CO2 increases, vegetation has increased 11% in arid areas of the world.
The Recent CO2 Record
The famous Mauna Loa CO2 measurements began in 1958, coincidentally at a historic low CO2 level of 315 ppm. In 1942 and again in 1822 CO2 was 440 ppm, 40 ppm higher than today. (Ernst-Georg Beck, 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis By Chemical Methods, Energy & Environment, Volume 18 No. 2, 2007, Fig. 2).
For the last 1400 years there have been 6 distinctive cycles of CO2 concentration as registered in plant leaf stomata proxy data. Each cycle is about 230 years in duration with a 300 ppm minimum and 400 ppm maximum. As of 2016 400 ppm was reached, the top of the cycle. If history repeats, expect this deVries cycle to reverse and produce lower CO2 readings over the next 115 or so years.
To say we are nearing runaway, irreversible global warming due to recent paltry CO2 increases is ludicrous.
Temperatures and Fossil Fuel Use
For the last 150 years there has not always been a correlation between fossil fuel use and temperature. Between 1940 and 1970 while CO2 increased, fossil fuel use leveled off and slightly decreased. (Klyashtorin and Lyubushim, Energy & Environment, Vol 14, No 6, Fig 1). So, for 30 years while less fossil fuel was burned, more CO2 was being generated. The question is: how can this be?
Temperatures and Solar Irradiance
There have been three global cooling and three global warming periods within the last 250 years. These periods all march to the tune of changing solar irradiance, not CO2 concentrations. (Douglas V. Hoyt and Kenneth H. Schatten, A Discussion of Plausible Solar Irradiance Variations, 1700-1992, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, No. All, Pages 18,895-18,906, November 1, 1993). Isn’t the correlation obvious? It’s the Sun, not CO2.
Greenhouse Gas Effect (GGE)
Only 3.27% of all CO2 generated comes from man, the other 96.73% comes from nature. Only 0.001% of water vapor comes from man; the other 99.999% comes from nature. Water vapor by a factor of 26 has more of a spectral absorption bandwidth or GGE than does CO2. After adding the contributions of methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs it turns out only 0.28% of the GGE comes from man, the other 99.72% comes from nature. If man ceased to exist, the reduction in the GGE would be one part out of 357, or barely noticeable.
Planetary Mechanics – THE Driver of Climate Change
Planetary mechanics is the study of orbiting celestial bodies, including changes to the solar system barycenter, spin orbit coupling, and changes in angular momentum. It is the very interaction of the motion of the planets, Sun and moon which dictate our climate and our weather. This isn’t theory. This is astrophysics.
Jupiter, Venus and Earth are called the Tidal Planets for good reason. They control the Sun’s tide and its 11 year sunspot cycle. There are many harmonics of this basic 11 year Schwab cycle. There is the 22 year Hale magnetic cycle. There is the 44 year Solar Conveyor Belt cycle. Every 88 years there is the Gleisberg cycle – an amplitude modulation of Schwab cycles. There is the 230 deVries cycle. The 1,440 year Bond or Ice Debris Cycle. The 2,200 year Hallstadt Cycle.
There are numerous other cycles built from combinations of solar, lunar and planetary cycles. Every 18 years there is the Lunar Tidal Cycle which corresponds to abundance cycles on Earth. About every 60 years there is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation cycle, the most powerful climate force on the planet.
Then there is Uranus and Neptune (U-N) with their 178 year orbit beat cycle. The Sun also operates in 360 year cycles, a harmonic of the U-N cycle. Each 360 year cycle is composed of Regular Oscillations, followed by a Grand Solar Maximum, followed by a Grand Solar Minimum. This totally predictable 360 year cycle has resulted in the Oort, Sporer, Maunder, Dalton and other unnamed Minimums within the past two millennia.
In 2009, we entered the next Grand Solar Minimum – the Landscheidt Minimum. This isn’t unfounded speculation. This is traceable, predictable planetary mechanics (Duhau and de Jager, The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity, Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1983-1999). From this point forward be prepared for relentless colder winter temperatures which will reach bottom around 2040. Along the way there will be ever-increasing fuel scarcity, crop failures, food shortages, famines and loss of life of millions. The next Little Ice Age has begun. No amount of pithy CO2 increase is going to provide enough life-saving warmth.
Planetary mechanics is the elephant in the room of climate change. The planets control the climate of the Sun which, combined with the Moon, control the climate on the Earth. CO2 is only a flea on the elephant’s ass coming along for the ride.
Climate Change is Big Business
The myth of global warming, climate change, climate change catastrophe – or whatever they are calling it today – continues, because of the trillions of dollars that would be lost and millions of leaf-raking jobs eliminated, if this charade were to be exposed.
* Banks and brokerage houses reap huge commissions from it.
* Scam artists like Maurice Strong thrive on it, creating schemes like carbon trading which suck billions of dollars from consumers’ wallets.
* Politicians need it to save us from imaginary hobgoblins and to justify tax increases to fund largesse programs that garner votes.
* Scientists keep busy by grazing at the trough of free grant money made available, but only if it can be shown that man is the cause.
* Corporations need it to sell cures for which there is no disease, and fatten up their bottom lines.
* The alternative energy, Green Building and sustainability industries came into existence and thrive off of it.
* The news media needs it to keep the frenzy going, the ratings up, and ad revenue coming in.
* The United Nations needs it to forge its role as the leader in One World Governance.
* Environmentalists, anti-industrialists, and other Communists need it in order to cut the legs out from underneath the evil, Capitalist United States and level the playing field for the world‘s less fortunate nations.
This is the hideous symbiosis of individuals, groups, businesses and governments that need the myth of climate change kept alive for their very financial survival. They are not going to go away, so long as they can continue to mainline on the juice. It is time to yank the tube out of their arms.
And one last thing: According to ice core records, the CO2 increases occur about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases. That is, CO2 doesn’t cause rising temperatures, rising water temperatures cause CO2 to gas out of solution from the world’s oceans into the atmosphere. CO2 is not a driver of climate. CO2 is a passenger.
[…] example of Democrat’s thintelligence is climate change. In an March 9th, 2017 article titled 30 New (2017) Scientific Papers Crush The Hockey Stick Graph And ‘Global’-Scale Warming Claims Kenneth Richard […]
Quick sort of question… reading through the back/forth, entertaining as it is… one comment stuck out to me…
Impact of CO2 on the models has been being decreased as more studies continue to look at it’s ‘impact’.
Would seem to me to be a fun idea to graph the ‘model’ impact of CO2 over time…?
Add another one —
A 2000-year temperature reconstruction in the Animaqin Mountains of the Tibet Plateau, China
Article (PDF Available) in The Holocene 26(12) · June 2016 with 71 Reads
DOI: 10.1177/0959683616646187 (available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303796213_A_2000-year_temperature_reconstruction_in_the_Animaqin_Mountains_of_the_Tibet_Plateau_China)
Feng Chen, Yong Zhang, Xuemei Shao
Chinese Academy of Sciences
University of San Diego
From page 1911–