Why Leftist Climate Change Hysteria is BOGUS


 

Once a past CO2 cycle was started, what was the limiting factor that ended that then current warming cycle?

Why has there been no “runaway” warming previously as the past self-feeding cycle of co2 took control?

Since CO2 historically is a trailing “indicator”, it is a dependent variable to the change in temperature, with the world’s oceans acting as a reservoir, why do you now state that it is the independent variable and temperature has become the dependent variable. What caused the reversal?

“Fifty five million years ago, there were more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” said Professor Stephen Pekar, of City University of New York. “That heated the world enough to melt all its ice caps. Sea levels would have been almost 200ft higher than today. ”

In fact, the planet seems to have three main settings: “greenhouse”, when tropical temperatures extend to the poles and there are no ice sheets at all; “icehouse”, when there is some permanent ice, although its extent varies greatly; and “snowball”, in which the planet’s entire surface is frozen over.

Why the ice periodically advances – and why it retreats again – is a mystery that glaciologists have only just started to unravel. Here’s our recap of all the back and forth they’re trying to explain.

Today’s melting may be man-made, but the EHIM precedent is still relevant. Polar bears clearly survived the ice-free seasons of 10,000-6,000 years ago, as they cope with ice-free summers or autumns in many parts of their range today, such as Hudson Bay. They need sea ice in spring when they feed on seal pups and they sometimes suffer if it is too thick, preventing seals from breeding in an area.

Meanwhile, theory predicts, and data confirms, that today’s carbon-dioxide-induced man-made warming is happening more at night than during the day, more during winter than summer and more in the far north than near the equator. An Arctic winter night is affected much more than a tropical summer day. If it were the other way around, it would be more harmful.

Some time in the next few decades, we may well see the Arctic Ocean without ice in August or September for at least a few weeks, just as it was in the time of our ancestors. The effect on human welfare, and on animal and plant life, will be small. For all the attention it gets, the reduction in Arctic ice is the most visible, but least harmful, effect of global warming.

At least five times since the formation of the earth, because of changes in global climate, the polar ice has expanded north and south toward the equator and has stayed there for at least a million years. The earliest of these known ice ages was some two billion years ago, during the Huronian epoch of the Precambrian era. The most recent ice age began about 1.7 million years in the Pleistocene epoch. It was characterized by a number of fluctuations in North polar ice, some of which expanded over much of modern North America and Europe, covered up to half of the existing continents, and measured as much as 1.8 mi (3 km) deep in some places. These glacial expansions locked up even more water, dropping sea levels worldwide by more than 300 ft (100 m). Animal species that had adapted to cold weather, like the mammoth, thrived in the polar conditions of the Pleistocene glaciations, and their ranges stretched south into what is now the southern United States.

The glaciers completed their retreat and settled in their present positions about 10–12,000 years ago. There have been other fluctuations in global temperatures on a smaller scale, however, that have sometimes been known popularly as ice ages. The 400 year period between the fourteenth and the eighteenth centuries is sometimes called the Little Ice Age. Contemporaries noted that the Baltic Sea froze over twice in the first decade of the 1300s. Temperatures in Europe fell enough to shorten the growing season, and the production of grain in Scandinavia dropped precipitously as a result. The Norse communities in Greenland could no longer be maintained and were abandoned by the end of the fifteenth century. Scientists argue that data indicate that we are currently in an interglacial period, and that North polar ice will again move south some time in the next 23,000 years.

Read more: Polar Ice Caps – Polar Ice Caps And Geologic History – Million, North, South, and Arctic – JRank Articleshttp://science.jrank.org/pages/5371/Polar-Ice-Caps-Polar-ice-caps-geologic-history.html#ixzz4j8h6dv1V

 

 

This new work supports an old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources.  The numbers are from IPCC data.
Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/793,100 = 0.029.
URL for table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

climatecentral

 

According to Climate Central: “Climate change has caused the U.S. average temperature to increase about 1.5° F since the 1880s.” The Deplorable Climate Science Blog broke down why this is incorrect:

The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.

 

climatechange1

climatechange2

The NOAA data corroborates the 1.5 degree uptick in temperature, but the problem lies in the faulty data.

According to the DCSB, the warming trend that the climate change crowd is referencing is based on fake data that has been altered from the raw data that does not show such an increase.

climatechange3

Can you guess what the adjustments from the raw data amounted to? Why, that would be 1.5 degrees — the number referenced in the article to bolster the climate change hoax.

climatechange4

The DCSB reported: “The adjustments being correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)”

climatechange5

These adjustments since 1970 have resulted almost entirely from the NOAA that has made up the numbers when station data went missing. In 2016, the NOAA made up an enormous amount of data as more than 42% of their monthly station data was nowhere to be found.

The DCSB pointed out that you can identify this fake temperature data easily as it has an “E” mark in their database.

climatechange6

The DCSB reported:

When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.

  1. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.
  2. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.

Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data.

climatechange7

The DCSB also debunked the TOBS issue:

Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is a real problem, but is very small. TOBS is based on the idea that if you reset a min/max thermometer too close to the afternoon maximum, you will double count warm temperatures (and vice-versa if thermometer is reset in the morning.) Their claim is that during the hot 1930’s most stations reset their thermometers in the afternoon.

This is easy to test by using only the stations which did not reset their thermometers in the afternoon during the 1930’s. The pattern is almost identical to that of all stations. No warming over the past century. Note that the graph below tends to show too much warming due to morning TOBS.

climatechange8

 

Even though it’s their own explanation for the data, a quick analysis from the NOAA’s own data shows that TOBS doesn’t explain away their faulty data as the adjustment for TOBS is very small — 0.3 degrees F.

noaa

Take a look at what Gavin Schmidt of NASA had to say about the data:

nasa

NOAA has known the truth about global warming for some time:

noaa2

Once again, man-made climate change is shown to be a farce.

H/T Pat Dollard