CO2 does not cause catastrophic warming
There is not even a correlation between CO2 and temperature!
Here is extensive scientific documentation to prove my point:
- from the 10th to the 13th century, there was the Medieval Warm Period, which was much warmer than the current temperatures. Here are more than 1000 studies from all over the globa that confirm that it was indeed a GLOBAL warm period, not just a regional one:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=85.05112875664979%2C-67.34259054431118&z=3
It was so warm that the Mongolian steppes grew green and the herds grew immense, along with the Mongolian population, which then caused them to spread out and launch attacks on China and Europe. Ghengis Khan was a result of the Medieval Warm Period. And guess what? No dangerous methane was released from Siberia, although it was clearly much warmer than now. - then came the Little Ice Age, which was an absolute disaster for all life forms, unlike all the warm periods on earth.
- temperatures have fortunately been rising since we started emerging from the Little Ice Age, starting about 1750. Varioius glaciers, e.g. in Switzerland, started retreating during the 19th century. Their retreat was totally unrelated to human activity. They were much smaller 2000 years ago than now, as explained by Prof.Schlüchter from University of Bern:
http://www.derbund.ch/wissen/natur/Unsere-Gesellschaft-ist-grundsaetzlich-unehrlich/story/24948853
- 1895-1940, rapidly rising temperatures, strong Arctic melting, periods of extreme heat and droughts, massive forest fires far exceeding anything the world has seen over the last 80 years.
- 1945 - 1978: massive global cooling, endless panicky articles about the COMING ICE AGE during the 1970s
- 1980 - 1998: strong warming
- 1999 - present: very little warming, but lots of data manipulation by NASA as they "adjust" historic and modern data (cf. below)
Here is just some of the massive evidence of the Global COOLING panic of the 1970s:
UN "Climate Change" publication 1973:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074891eo.pdf
NOAA Volume 4 Number 4 October 1974 "Man-made climate disasters due to global cooling"
https://web.archive.org/web/20160630234737/http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/noaa/QC851U461974oct.pdf
Science, Nature, National Geographic, Washington Post, NYT, The Guardian etc. all published endless articles about the dangers of Global Cooling! Most of the alleged risks were exactly the same they now claim for "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", because they implicitely admit that temperatures are hardly rising anymore, since 1998.
In 2013, the IPCC admitted that the "slowdown" was CENTRAL to their new report:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24173504
The IPCC modeler Dr.von Storch admitted that if temperatures did not start rising much faster within 5 years, they would have to abandon the CO2 climate warming hypothesis:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
In October 2014, NASA was so desperate that they looked for the "missing heat" in the abyss ... and found nothing!
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/
No heating of the oceans. In fact, neither satellite measurements nor the Argo buoy project that measured sea temperatures worldwide found any warming. The Argo buoys even found that the oceans were COOLING. Which NASA "fixed" by ... eliminating the data records that showed cooling and then writing a lengthy article about why it was ok to commit such scientific fraud.
Tempertures did NOT rise, but in 2015, the NOAA "discovered" the "missing heat" by lowering the temperatures of the past and raising the temperatures of the present! Just in time for Obama's paticipation in the Paris conference where he would talk about the dire consequences of this "Global Warming".
Take what they did with Reykjavik: they changed a record heat spike in 1940 into a very low temperature ... then had to change it back, because the change was fraudulent. But they did this to THOUSANDS of records!
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=620040300000&ds=7&dt=1
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=IC000004030&ds=14&dt=1
Two more stations where they changed a COOLING to a WARMING trend:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=1
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=14
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=303825860000&dt=1&ds=1
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=303825860000&dt=1&ds=12
So all this climate change will be "dangerous" to the "fragile environment" of our planet and those who would suffer the most live in hot climates?
EXCEPT that our climate is:
- NOT fragile
- Climate change is THE NORM and happens all the time, including rapid warming and cooling
- we are currently in the COLDEST period of the last 10'000 years
- all the periods of great civilizations (Minoan, Roman, Medieval Warm Period etc.) were much warmer than now
- the ONLY measurable effect of the increased atmospheric CO2 has been a GREENING OF THE PLANET, especially in arid regions!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
and
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/full
Forest fires DECLINED substantially from what they used to be in the first half of the 19th century. The statistics they usually present start in the 1960s to show an increase. They never show the data for the years before 1960: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345
Far from causing warm regions any harm, they benefitted immensely from the added CO2. Australia got greener, more humid and slightly cooler.
http://theconversation.com/record-rains-made-australia-a-giant-green-global-carbon-sink-26646
In fact, we now grow much more food than in the past on SMALLER surfaces than in the past. Lots of fertile land is not currently in use.
All species are doing better, with warmer weather. Including polar bears - their population increased massively, since the 1960s when there was record Arctic ice. They went from about 8'000 to about 38'000 by now.
THERE IS NO MASS EXTINCTION!
If life was "fragile", we would not be here. Life is incredibly adaptable and resiliant and adaptation happens at an extremely high speed - for the simple reason that the environment changes all the time and extremely fast!
The Krakatoa eruption of 1883 darkened the sun with a massive layer of particles in the stratosphere, which caused about 5 years of cooling - yet there were no extinctions: life adapts!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
All the alleged "risks" are in computer models that have the same validity as economic predictions by governments. Based on the modelers' own admission:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390
The model temperature predictions diverge by more than the ENTIRE estimated warming since 1960.
They ignore that 1940 was only 0.2C cooler than 1998, which was hotter than any year since then.
Doomsayers always existed - it is a constant throughout human civilization. Doomsayers gain money and power over other people who fall for their lies.
What do ALL doomsayers have in common? 100% of their predictions FAILED!
There have been more than 50 predictions of doom since the 1960s (Club of Rome, Dr.Ehrlich, Earth Day, global cooling, global warming, sea level rise, Arctic melting, Antarctic melting, end of snow, deadly pollution etc.) - 100% WERE COMPLETELY WRONG!
Not even in the ballpark they predicted.
Professor Richard Muller, co-founder of Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature: "Looking at the data, I can see no evidence of human influence"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Moum_SZ5NNY&feature=youtu.be
Prof. Muller was already very upset in 2004 when he found that Michael Mann's hockey stick model was completely wrong. He gave him the benefit of doubt and assumed it was an honest mistake, but it was intentional fraud:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
As for the ice core studies, they mostly confirmed that "We live in the coldest period of the last 10.000 years", as explained in this video by glaciologist Jørgen Peder Steffensen as he takes us back in time to the Greenland icecores and reveals the secrets from the past:
https://vimeo.com/14366077
It's really interesting how many people keep claiming that ice core data supposedly shows much lower CO2 levels for the past 800'000 years, but keep forgetting that the ice core data still shows MUCH WARMER TEMPERATURES, which totally destroys the alleged temperature - CO2 correlation. Obvious conclusion: either CO2 has no influence at all on temperature or the influence is so small as to be negligible.
Here is an article summing up all the data fraud that has been used to convince people that there is severe global warming and that it is the fault of humanity:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-warming-fraud-exposed-pictures
________________________________________
Garbage propaganda - it's funny what kind of articles one comes across that lie shamelessly to the unsuspecting public:
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2019/06/11/countries-increasing-carbon-emissions-the-fastest/
It claims on the first line: "The first Earth Day was in 1970, and by 1977, scientists generally agree that global warming was the greatest climate risk of the century. "
The first Eart Day was just another Marxist event, coinciding with Lenin's birthday. Not at all reminding us of the fact that ALL "green", "anti-nuclear" and "peace" movements from the 1960s to the 1980s were founded and financed by the USSR - with the explicit goal to hinder western progress and undermine our culture, education, research and technology.
So naturally, their agenda and predictions were bullshit from A-Z, the only goal being the creation of fear. And the 1970s scare whas GLOBAL COOLING, because the temperatures were DROPPING massively, so NO ONE was claiming that warming was a scare.
Let's have a look at what NOAA published in December of 1977:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493(1978)106%3C0755:GTVSMA%3E2.0.CO;2
"Based on a network of 63 well-spaced radiosonde stations around the world, the global temperature within the surface to 100 nib layer was lower in 1976 than in any year since commencement of the record in 1958, and the 1976 surface temperature equaled the global record for the lowest temperature set in 1964; but even so the trend in global temperature since 1965 has been small compared to the 0.5°C decrease during 1960-65. Between 1958 and 1976 the surface to 100 mb temperature in north extratropics decreased by about 1°C, with the decrease twice as great in winter as in summer, and in 1976 this region was 0.2°C lower than in any previous year of record."
Please tell me where is that 0.5C decrease 1960 - 65 in the diagrams usually shown? The total decrease from 1940 to 1978 was about equivalent to the total increase from 1895 to 1940. The increase from 1940 to totay was AT MOST 0.2C!
So how do you explain that MASSIVE drop? The fraudsters exposed in ClimateGate pretended that this was "because of sulphur oxide emissions", but they admitted in their messages that they KNEW that this was pure bullshit they made up for lack of an actual explanation. They did not have a clue why temperatures dropped and that was obviously a massive problem for their claims!
You can hop up and down all you want, you can't make this NOAA data go away.
Or the UN data. Or the Science, Nature etc. studies. ALL of them agree that the temperature drop from 1940/45 to 1978 was massive.
So NO CORRELATION WITH CO2!
As that emergence of the "warming" hypothesis coincided with my studies of Physics in the early 1980s, I remember precisely that the debate hinged ENTIRELY on the claim that CO2 MIGHT cause a tiny bit of warming (never demonstrated as more than totally marginal), but that this tiny bit of warming would cause positive feedback, i.e. cause more cloud formation, which in turn would then lead to significant warming.
Originally, NO ONE claimed that CO2 would cause significant warming on its own. That claim was simply too absurd. Actual scientists KNOW that CO2 warming is marginal at best - and due mostly to an increase in atmospheric density, not to its chemical composition.
There are multiple problems with the "feedback" claim:
a) it has never been demonstrated
b) more water evaporation could lead to all sorts of effects - more clouds, water vapor in the atmosphere etc. but the height of the cloudes totally changes their effect: high altitude clouds will cause cooling, as they will reflect more sunlight, low-altitude clouds might store more energy and thus cause warming. Practically the entire energy stored in the atmosphere is contained in water vapor.
c) if there was positive feedback, then why is the earth not like Venus? We had CO2 concentrations that were up to 18x higher than now in the past. (-550 million years). So if CO2 caused warming and positive feedback, there is no way the temperatures would ever have fallen!
We MUST conclude that feedback is negative.
QED
AT WHAT POINT DO PEOPLE STOP BELIEVING THOSE LIARS?