A: Because the government can’t CONTROL and TAX THE SUN.
The left-leaning British Broadcasting Corporation admitted last week that the emissions scenario used in “more than 2,000 research papers” about our climate future was “misleading“ (headline later changed to “exceedingly unlikely”). According to Chico, California-based meteorologist Anthony Watts, author of Watts Up With That?, “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change,” this is the most significant blow to the climate alarmist movement since Climategate in 2009. Dr. Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, writes:
“BBC News this week rang down the curtain on the climate science fraternity’s long running malpractice of projecting climate change impacts using a worst-case emissions scenario as if it were a business-as-usual scenario.”
But no sophisticated understanding of emissions scenarios and climate science is required to realize the obvious flaws in the climate scare. Consider the following.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises only .04% (.0004) of our atmosphere. There is only 1/10,000 more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 260 years ago.
The effect of an increase from 3 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules to 4 molecules out of 10,000, that took over two and one-half centuries to increase just 1 molecule, is at best minute, and, most likely, essentially nothing.
The pro-global warming hypothesis is not just that warming is bad (which it is not), but that CO2 from fossil fuels caused most of the past century’s warming and will cause the world to warm to a dangerous extent in the near future. While the premise should seem absurd to any rational person, it is still important to present strong evidence that man’s increasing use of fossil fuels, and thus increasing CO2, doesn’t significantly affect temperature, for the global warming alarmist argument to fail. Fortunately, there is not just one line of evidence, but many.
Have temperatures increased at the same pace as CO2 (correlation)? If two things move together, it doesn’t mean that one caused the other. Correlation doesn’t prove causation. But if the two phenomena under investigation don’t move in unison, it surely means one thing didn’t cause the other.
The fact that average temperatures did not rise much (other than during two naturally caused El Nino events) over the past two decades, during which about 1/3 of all human CO2 has been emitted, indicates that CO2 has no significant effect on real world temperatures. Thus, temperature is most likely not very sensitive to CO2, and the global warming argument fails.
For the past 100 years, CO2 in the atmosphere has steadily but slowly increased (in no year did CO2 levels drop from the prior year), yet in some years, temperatures dropped. This is another example of low correlation, and so again, the global warming argument fails.
From about 1910 to the 1940’s, when there was relatively little man-made CO2 from fossil fuels, Earth’s temperatures increased. In fact, about 40% of the 20th century warming took place prior to man’s significant addition of CO2.
After 1940, when there was an economic and industrial boom, and man added lots of CO2 from fossil fuels, temperatures decreased for about 40 years. Thus, again the man-caused global warming argument fails.
When there was a worldwide recession, around 1975, when manmade CO2 started to decrease, the records show a slight increase in temperatures. Again, the global warming argument fails.
As shown in the below graph, in the distant past, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been more than ten times what they are today. During those times, there has been both ice ages and warm periods.
There have been times in history when CO2 levels were high and temperatures very low. And times in which CO2 levels were very low and temperatures very high. This negative correlation indicates that global warming argument fails again and the hypothesis of CO2 causing much real-world temperature change is almost certainly wrong. The above graph shows that, contrary to the opinions of climate activists, temperature and CO2 levels are not correlated over long periods of time.
While these examples may not convince everyone that the alarmist position is wrong, they should eliminate any thoughts that the alarmists have solid ground to stand on. Indeed, when there actually is correlation between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere, it is a negative one: temperature increase comes first, before an increase in CO2. This makes sense because warming oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere just as a warm carbonated beverage loses its fizz.
If CO2 rise does not affect temperature, then what does?
The Sun is the most obvious answer, but, amazingly, it is mostly ignored in mathematical climate change models. We have learned that, contrary to popular opinion, the Sun is always changing. Many leading solar physicists suggest that variations in the output of the Sun account for most of the slight warming and changes in temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1880. There is also a strong correlation between sunspot activity and Earth’s temperature.
Temperature on other planets that revolve our Sun have changed in sync with Earth’s temperature changes. Clearly, this is a result of changes in solar output.
Why don’t we hear more about the Sun and its impact on climate change?
Because the government can’t control and tax the Sun.
There is also evidence that increasing ocean seismic activity, causing geothermal heating of the ocean floor is more strongly correlated with recent global temperature rise than CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In fact, volcanos affect the Earth’s temperature far more than humans do since there are currently around 200 active volcanos. It is also believed that there are underwater volcanos that we have yet to detect.
Changes in Earth’s orbit and tilt have been theorized, with a good deal of strong evidence, to also have a large effect on long-term temperature trends. Changes in cloud cover and ocean currents match global temperature changes as well.
The oceans act as a huge temperature regulator, making basically impossible the idea of a runaway, fast-paced dangerous atmospheric temperature rise as portrayed by alarmist politicians and the media.
A basic principle of earth science is that natural feedbacks in the climate system balance out any sudden changes almost always bringing the system back into equilibrium. In fact, negative feedbacks have kept the Earth’s atmosphere relatively stable for the last 500 million years. Water vapor, evaporation, clouds, thunderstorms, gravity, and ocean circulation are mostly absent in the climate models but are the great balancers. This is why we don’t have run-away rapid changes suggested by those who trumpet that life as we know it will end in 12 years unless we stop using fossil fuels
There are hundreds of influencers thought to determine the Earth’s temperature. If we knew them all and the role they played, no computer in existence including IBM’s Watson, which is reputed to being able to process 500 gigabytes, equal to a million books, per second, could come up with an answer inside of a decade. To name but a few would include:
- water vapor,
- soil moisture,
- snowfall reflection,
- surface reflection ability,
- cloud reflection ability,
- ocean heat exchange,
- winds, solar flares,
- the Sun’s magnetic field,
- solar sun spots,
- interstellar dust,
- solar cycles,
- geomagnetic storms from the Sun,
- cosmic rays,
- magnetic field shifts,
- oscillations in Earth’s orbit,
- tilt of the Earth,
- gravity effect of the Moon,
- ocean currents, ocean circulation,
- ocean salinity,
- upwelling of the oceans,
- amount of cloud cover,
- type of clouds,
- tropical thunderstorms that move huge amount of heat from the oceans, up to the atmosphere, and release the heat out to space,
- El Nino verses La Nina,
- forest fires decreasing & increasing,
- volcanoes erupting,
- bacteria, animal, and plant respiration,
- natural decay of organic matter, and wood burning,
- increasing and decreasing, aerosols.
The point is there are hundreds of variables that affect temperatures. The climate models that inform the alarmist argument use very few of them and, even for those, just guess at their influence.
For people who have studied climate change for over 40 years, like the senior author of this article, Dr. Jay Lehr⏤it is frustrating to know that the evidence against mankind having any role in it, is overwhelming. Yet the public and the opposition believe otherwise.
Perhaps you dear reader will help explain it to those in your sphere of influence. For significant though last week’s admission of the inappropriate use of unrealistic emissions scenarios was, it really pales in comparison to the common-sense flaws in the man-caused dangerous global warming argument.