A warm suggestion

A warm suggestion.  The globe has been in a long term warming trend since the low temperature point of the most recent ice age. Technically, we are still in an interglacial period of that ice age so long as there is year-round ice at the poles. The ice sheet on Antarctica is increasing. Measurements from satellites show a statistically significant albeit slight global warming trend, less than 1 degree, although the number of years of satellite data is very small for this purpose.

Global temp GISS

However, the temperature “hockey stick” increase does not exist in the real world, though it was very widely proclaimed and forecasted as dangerous by global warming alarmists. Further, we do not have a good correlation of the trend of atmospheric CO2 versus the trend of global temperature. In fact, those two trends are diverging. That divergence is very strong, exculpatory evidence that temperature is not being forced by CO2, which was the hypothesis of the global warming/climate alarmists. We all know that correlation does not prove cause.

We can clearly see the mistake in the attribution of cause by the divergence between the predicted temperature in all climate models when compared to observed temperatures.

models-vs-datasets

We can clearly see the mistake in the attribution of cause in the scientific literature by the continuing decline in estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 .

Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Declining-Scafetta-2017

But alarmists proposed that CO2 was the cause, the trigger, which was said by them to be forcing global warming. If CO2 were the cause, then there must be a strong correlation. But there is nothing of significance. If CO2 were forcing significant or dangerous warming, then temperature trend and CO2 trend must be converging or at least parallel, not diverging.  The data clearly show that the climate is not sensitive to CO2 concentration.

CO2 v Temp

In fact, CO2 concentration is about as low as it has ever been in geological history. There are sound arguments that higher CO2 would be better.

Geocraft

Since the beginning, the alarmist CO2 hypothesis was a “plug” in their climate models, a hypothetical cause which was presumed, not measured, by eliminating or miscategorizing other climate variables. The primary example of that is the consensus definition of water vapor and clouds as a “feedback”, rather than as the known dominant greenhouse gas. Instead, if water vapor and clouds are defined as greenhouse gas in climate models, then the error in the measurement of temperature change due to water vapor and clouds is larger than the greenhouse warming effect caused by man-made CO2.  First, the greenhouse effect (or radiative forcing) of water vapor and clouds is 10 times larger than the effect of CO2.  Second, it should be obvious, measuring the greenhouse warming effect of water vapor and clouds in the natural environment is difficult due to their very high natural variability.

 

Atmospheric Composition and Greenhouse Gases

Antropogenic Contribution to Greenhouse Effect

By miscategorizing water vapor and clouds as feedback instead of the dominant greenhouse gas, then,  CO2 is at the top of the list of greenhouse gases, instead of CO2 being trivial, statistically insignificant, less than noise in the measurement of water vapor and clouds.  Then it would be too obvious to the public that CO2 is not dangerous pollution, and there would be no rationale to eliminate fossil fuels, no rationale for taxpayers and NGOs to fund billions of dollars of “greenhouse gas” projects and research, no money flowing into crony pockets for “sustainable” solar and wind projects, no money into political campaign coffers. It’s an expensive fraud of global proportions. Eventually, some lawyers will be enriched by triple damages awarded by juries.

Technical reference:

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf

 

 

 

About budbromley

Life sciences executive, retired
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A warm suggestion

  1. nickreality65 says:

    The Radiative Greenhouse Effect Theory

    Premise 1:
    The earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. (288 K – 255 K = 33 C)
    So, just how does that work?

    Premise 2:
    There is an up/down/”back” radiative CO2/GHG energy loop between the surface and the atmosphere that “traps” and recirculates energy through QED processes warming both the atmosphere and the surface.
    And what powers that energy loop?

    Premise 3:
    The surface radiates as a 288 K black body with an emission of 390 W/m^2 (K-T 289 K & 396 W/m^2)

    Premise 1, 2 & 3 are demonstrably false.

    No 33 C warmer + No up/down/”back” radiation loop + No BB radiation = Carbon dioxide and mankind play ZERO role in the behavior of the climate.

    Premise 1:
    http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
    Premise 2:
    http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
    Premise 3:
    http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/21036-S-B-amp-GHG-amp-LWIR-amp-RGHE-amp-CAGW
    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.