The Truth About Global Warming Can Be Found If You Look
Updated: November 7, 2022
There is too much evidence that CO2 is not warming the atmosphere.
The scientific method says it is impossible to prove a theory is true (as the IPCC claims to do), but it takes only one contradiction to prove a theory is false.
If you don't read anything else, read the following 3-4 linked articles:
Some of the linked research and articles are long, so you might want to just read the abstract or jump down to their conclusions. There are physicists, engineers and climatologist who say these things. If you don't know who to believe, look at their research before you make a decision.
A little history from 2009 . . .
An Inconvenient Voice: Dr. Alan Carlin Dr. Carlin is an Environmental Protection Agency veteran who recently wrote a damaging report, warning that the science behind climate change was questionable at best, and that we shouldn’t pass laws that will hurt American families and hobble the nation’s economy based on incomplete information.
Climate change alarmism is not based on science. It is based on money, politics, brainwashing, groupthink, and conditioned reflex as Pavlov did with his dogs.
This next paper proves CO2 does not warm the atmosphere.
Davis, W.J. 2017. The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature for the last 425 million years. Climate 5: 76; doi: 10.3390/cli5040076.
Writing by way of introduction to his work, Davis (2017) notes that "a central question for contemporary climate policy is how much of the observed global warming is attributable to the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 and other trace greenhouse gases emitted by human activities."
"the most accurate quantitative empirical evaluation to date of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature."
As noted by the author, the most striking observation from the visual comparison is the "apparent dissociation and even an antiphasic relationship" among the two variables.
500 Million Years of Unrelatedness between Atmospheric CO2 and Temperature
Get the Unrelatedness research paper
"The CO2 hypothesis forecasts the global temperature to increase whenever the atmospheric CO2 concentration goes up, if not counteracted by any other known climatic phenomena, such as, e.g., volcanic eruptions. Whenever a situation like the present occurs, with increasing atmospheric CO2 and essentially stable (or decreasing) global temperatures over several years without known counter effect, the hypothesis is falsified." -
Then, there's outright fraud
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.
What about ocean acidification?
"In conclusion, claims of impending marine species extinctions driven by increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration do not appear to be founded in empirical reality, based on the experimental findings we have analyzed above."
Facts about Climate from the Heartland Institute
Climate alarmism does not exemplify the honest pursuit of science. Pseudo-scientific evidence or arguments, undisclosed or falsified data, are lodged within an enveloping political narrative and best understood in this fuller context. The surest way to understand climate alarmism is as self-interested politics.
We did not add all the additional CO2 since 1780. Most is natural.
"Far too many people, including scientists, incorrectly assume the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is correct about climate change. They incorrectly think undesirable climate events prove our CO2 caused these events, which is not only nonsense but also logically invalid because events do not prove their cause."
According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.
This post compiles several independent proofs which refute those reasserting the “consensus” view attributing all additional atmospheric CO2 to humans burning fossil fuels.
Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
"CO2, water, and CH4 (methane) and some other minor gases are so-called “greenhouse gases” because they absorb infrared energy. However, be careful to avoid the common misunderstanding that the earth and its atmosphere behave like a garden greenhouse; that is not true.
... the sun heats the earth, then the earth heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not heating the earth. According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy only flows from higher energy earth to the lower energy atmosphere. Earth (oceans and land) heat the air, not the reverse.
This is NOT to say that humans do not affect temperature and climate in other ways, such as building cities, roads, planting or cutting forests and fields, etc. This IS to say that AGW, the hypothesis of human-caused global warming by the contribution of a mere 0.004% of the total CO2 emissions, is scientifically wrong. The human contribution to global warming is statistically insignificant, so tiny it is unmeasurable in the real world; the hypothesis of human-caused global warming/climate change has been falsified by real world observations and experiments." Select the following link to read the whole article:
Mainstream climate science claims CO2 molecules “slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface” like a blanket does. And yet the rate at which a CO2 molecule retains or slows down heat loss is, at most, a negligible 0.0001 of a second. A CO2 concentration of 300 ppm versus 400 ppm will therefore have no detectable impact.
WHAT CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE
From what I've read, a reasonable hypothesis might be as follows:
What ever caused the interglacial warm periods is causing the minor warming and cooling periods within the overall warm period, just on a smaller scale.
A solar maximum with a stronger magnetic field blocks more cosmic particles that help in low warm cloud formation, thus reducing those clouds that block the sun allowing more sunlight through to heat the oceans. The reverse happens during a solar minimum creating more low warm clouds that block sunlight cooling the oceans. Because it takes a long time to heat or cool the oceans due to there massive volume, there is a lag of some time period after more or fewer clouds are forming for the atmosphere to warm up or cool down.
Combine solar minimums with Milankovich cycles and you may have the conditions to kick off another glacial period. Glaciers are formed of lots of unmelted snow. To get that snow, the oceans had to be warm enough for evaporation to create clouds that precipitate as snow.
As the oceans cover 71% of the earth, they most likely are the main factor in heating or cooling the atmosphere.
A warm ocean heats the atmosphere via evaporation and conduction, a cool ocean just doesn't heat it as much.
At the same time the warmer tropical ocean emits CO2, very possibly, more than is absorbed by cooler oceans during a warm period like our modern one.
So CO2 concentration rises with warmer ocean comprising a larger area than cooler oceans.
The recent 40 year grand solar maximum has just ended in 2018 according to NASA and others that watch solar events. The oceans are warmer now, so there will be a time lag before cooling is felt.
Next is a plausible cause of "Climate Change", There is a lot of evidence presented.
The evidence shown in this model suggests that the observed increase in ocean warming that has been widely attributed to anthropological atmospheric CO2, is actually due to a strain energy response from the slow and periodic displacement of the mantle which began with a gradual increase in activity just prior to the generally accepted end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. These sporadic pulses of thermal content moved gradually from the crust/mantle boundary into the deep ocean where it was then transported through PDO, ENSO and AMOC circulations to the surface where it then warmed the atmosphere.
Plate Tectonics: a history of a changing climate through geologic forcing
Variations in solar irradiance are widely believed to explain climatic change on 20,000- to 100,000-year time-scales in accordance with the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, but there is no conclusive evidence that variable irradiance can be the cause of abrupt fluctuations in climate on time-scales as short as 1,000 years. We propose that such abrupt millennial changes, seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon.
What to expect in a Grand Solar Minimum. How does an increase in galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate and also tectonic activity?
"Our experimental results show that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere is completely independent of greenhouse gas concentrations. This directly contradicts the greenhouse effect theory, which predicts that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations should cause the lower atmosphere to heat up (“global warming”)."
During at least the time period when water vapor (WV) and carbon dioxide (CO2) have been accurately measured worldwide, 1988-now, and apparently for centuries, WV increase has been responsible for the human contribution to Global Warming with no significant net contribution from CO2 or any other greenhouse gases.
It seems like every day, reports of climate change become more apocalyptic. Few politicians express any doubt in the notion that human activity is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. Indeed, quite the opposite is the norm.
A new paper has been published recently in the journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change,” was written by Ned Nikolov, a Ph.D. in physical science, and Karl Zeller, retired Ph.D. research meteorologist. The paper argues that the basic science behind Global Warming is incorrect.
Many people mistakenly assume that 90-95% of scientists agree that recent climate change is “mostly human-caused”. The reality is that there is a wide range of views among the scientific community about the causes of recent climate change.
“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming.This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution. - Dr. Roy W. Spencer
"Explore our extensive library of facts and detailed data to empower yourself with knowledge, educate friends and family, and join us in our love for CO2."
Lots of facts about CO2 and the climate
"Extreme variations in local weather and the seasons make it easy for people to mutter “greenhouse effect”, and blame everything on carbon dioxide. Along with other man-made gases, such as methane, carbon dioxide has received a bad press for many years and is uniformly cited as the major cause of the greenhouse effect. This is simply not correct."
"Scientists are increasingly tuning out the claims that the Earth’s temperatures are predominantly shaped by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or that future climate is destined to be alarmingly warm primarily due to the rise in trace atmospheric gases. Instead, solar scientists are continuing to advance our understanding of solar activity and its effect on the Earth system, and their results are progressively suggestive of robust correlations between solar variability and climate changes."
It was a money making scheme first:
AGW is all political, promoted by the United Nations to advance a global governance and monetary redistribution system. The Global Warming initiative is a vehicle to this end. It is not about saving the planet. The IPCC scientists are paid to create evidence that burning fossil fuels is heating the atmosphere. If they are successful in convincing the governments of the world of that, they will take your freedom and tell you what you can eat, where you can go and how much money you can make.
Our government thinks they should take trillions of our dollars and give them to other countries in the name of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Due to the empirical and derived data showing cooling for the last 8,000 years and history of glacial periods, I would say that we should be preparing for the coming glacial period that will be 10º to 15º F colder than present temperatures. I'm guessing, that will kill about 50% of the earths population. Now, that's a real crisis!
Food for Thought:
Why didn't the earth overheat back when CO2 was 2,000 ppm, 3,000 ppm, 6,000 ppm? It's only 400 ppm, now.
Why didn't high levels of CO2 prevent past ice ages?
What caused the medieval warm period that was followed by a medieval cold period known as the little ice age?
Why does the graph of Vostok ice core data show temperature rises before CO2 rises and falls before CO2 falls?
Certainly, we have more pressing problems on which to spend 500 billion dollars; Like securing our borders, curing disease, housing and feeding the poor, creating job opportunities, real infrastructure, beefing up our defenses, making sure our elections are honest, planning for the next ice age(it is coming) ...
There is too much evidence that CO2 based AGW is hoax to create fear in people and allow the government/statists to gain more control and grow the government.
The only alleged scientists supporting AGW as an existential crisis are the ones working for the IPCC.
From the International Journal of Atmospheric Sciences
"Maybe the most important message of this investigation is that on the basis of well retraceable physical interrelations there exist several stronger arguments for the inclusion of some effects, which obviously were not considered in the IPCC reports and which can significantly attenuate the influence of CO2 on global warming. The discrepancies primarily go back to an overall negative feedback we find in our calculation, and to the inclusion of solar effects."
Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2
* CO2 cannot do what the IPCC says it does. This research shows that CO2 has virtually no affect on the climate temperature. Climate change is driving CO2, not the other way around.
* More CO2 Will Have Little To No Impact On Global Warming
* Carbon dioxide is nothing but a pass-through for miniscule energy—0.16% of the energy leaving the Earth's surface absorbed and re-emitted in 83 femtoseconds (83 x 10-15 seconds). - https://nov79.com/index.html
* News article: https://climatechangedispatch.com/physics-prof-concludes-doubling-co2-adds-just-0-5c-cannot-affect-climate/
The paper from the above news article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.00708.pdf
"SATURATION OF THE INFRARED ABSORPTION BY CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE"
"Saturation of infrared radiation by the realistic CO2 content of the atmosphere of 0.03 % being reached within approximately 1% according to Table 1, any further increase of the CO2 content does not substantially increase the absorption of radiation, and accordingly does not affect the climate on earth."
Articles referenced by the above article:
Challenging the Greenhouse Effect Specification
and the Climate Sensitivity of the IPCC
Infrared Atmospheric Emission
The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
Some facts about greenhouse and global warming
Unfortunately there's a lot of rubbish available on the 'net giving rather misleading descriptions of Earth's natural 'greenhouse effect' and of the probable consequences of human-generated emissions adding to this effect.
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide And Climate
International Journal of Atmospheric Sciences
Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2
Estimating climate sensitivity using two-zone energy balance models
A Simple Alternative Model for the Estimation of the Carbon Dioxide Effect on the Earth's Energy Balance
Within the approximations used in the model, a doubling the CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere would lead to an increase of the surface temperature by about +0.5 to 0.7 °C, hardly an effect calling for immediate drastic changes in the planet's energy policies.
Anthropogenic CO2 warming challenged by 60-year cycle "focus on earth greening and benefit for crops yields of the supplementary photosynthesis, further minimizing the consequences of the tiny anthropogenic contribution to warming."
* The slight warming is no crisis ...
* What your congressional representatives need to know before authorizing hundreds of billions of tax dollars to be spent on the myth of Anthropogenic Climate Change ...
* Dissenting voices are important in the debate ...
* There is no climate crisis. In fact, more CO2 will be beneficial.
William Happer, Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University on CO2
* "There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today. "
* "The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
* Academia is filled with scientific literature that contradicts the position of those who believe climate change is unprecedented. In 2020 alone, over 400 peer-reviewed scientific papers took up a skeptical position on climate alarmism. These papers—and hundreds from previous years—address various issues related to climate change, including problems with climate change observation, climate reconstructions, lack of anthropogenic/CO2 signal in sea-level rise, natural mechanisms that drive climate change (solar influence on climate, ocean circulations, cloud climate influence, ice sheet melting in high geothermal heat flux areas), hydrological trends that do not follow modeled expectations, the fact that corals thrive in warm, high-CO2 environments, elevated CO2 and higher crop yields, no increasing trends in intense hurricanes and drought frequency, the myth of mass extinctions due to global cooling, etc.
*The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees.
Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.
This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic warming of the climate in coming years.
The one-sided political treatment of CO2 as a pollutant that should be radically reduced must be corrected in light of the indisputable scientific evidence that it is essential to life on Earth.
Without CO2, we die.
*There is no consensus on climate change, but that it does change. The problem with the research is that to get government grants to support themselves, researchers find the politically popular result. They tune their climate models to show that result. "Consensus for GHGT is very small, limited to UN IPCC and a few governments."
*9,000+ PHD credentialed scientists signed a petition stating that Anthropogenic Global Warming was false. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
*"The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC." Read the petition ...
*Well respected Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy says global temperatures would have still risen without the industrial revolution – essentially dismissing the claim that man is responsible for climate change.
*Historic average temperatures have ranged from 85º F to 50º F over the past 600 million years. Presently 59º F. We are coming out of a cold period, so it is natural for temperatures to rise. 175M years ago when CO2 was about 2000 ppm, it was a nice 77ºF, 10ºC warmer than today, where it had been for most of the past 600M years with CO2 as high as 7000 ppm.
- C.R. Scotese – https://climateilluminated.com/history/climate_history.html
*CO2 is not the driver of temperature. Cycles of the planets and solar output cause climate change. Warming will continue until about 2050, then start to turn cooler. By 2400 the next Little-Ice-Age will be upon us. It is shown that this 934 year cycle matches warm and cold periods.
- P.A. Semi - http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/Orbital_Resonance_and_Solar_Cycles.pdf pg48
*CO2 levels follow temperature change. CO2 has been up when Temperatures were down, but charts of Vostok ice core data show that it follows temperature change for the last 450k years. Temperature goes up then CO2 follows. Temperature goes down then CO2 follows. Question: If high levels of CO2 in the past were not able to prevent the cooling going into a glacial period, how could it be responsible for warming the atmosphere?
*CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas. "water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature."
*The more CO2 there is the less the warming impact it has(IPCC formula courtesy Monckton 2017). It could be doubled with very little effect on temperature. In the past, CO2 has been as much as 20 times today's level. Plants will grow much faster (more food for everyone). The optimal amount of CO2 for plants is 1500 ppm. Note that if CO2 levels drop below 150ppm, plants will cease to grow and so will all animal life on earth.
*When the surface warms, the water cycle cools it. The water cycle cools the surface much like an air conditioner cools your house. Water absorbs heat from the surface and is then converted to vapor which rises to an elevation where it condenses in to droplets forming clouds and releasing that heat to the upper atmosphere. Most of this heat is radiated out to space, not back to Earth. Rain then begins the cycle again. The more water vapor in the air, the more cooling occurs with the water cycle, so there is no runaway heating. According to Greenhouse Gas Theory, the tropics should be burning up because of the high amounts of water vapor, but they're not. The temperatures there are no worse than Washington DC in the summer, about 90º F. That's because of the cooling effect of water vapor.
*The warmer it is, the more plants and animals thrive. Cold kills far more than heat. Crops fail and life dies during cold periods. See "little ice age of the middle ages". Climatologists call warm periods "climate optimums" because life thrives during them.
Read the latest report from The Global Warming Policy Foundation:https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/02/Goklany-EmpiricalTrends.pdf
From the report, page 32:
While climate may have changed for the warmer:
• Most extreme weather phenomena have not become more extreme, more deadly, or more destructive.
• Empirical evidence directly contradicts claims that increased carbon dioxide has reduced human wellbeing. In fact, human wellbeing has never been higher.
• Whatever detrimental effects warming and higher carbon dioxide may have had on terrestrial species and ecosystems, they have been swamped by the contribution of fossil fuels to increased biological productivity. This has halted, and turned around, reductions in habitat loss."
*Aside from all the facts above, to quote Ms. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, in 2015 openly stated the goal was to overturn capitalism - in her words "to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution." This stated goal has nothing to do with saving the planet from human activity. It has everything to do with imposing someones idea of how society should operate and control of that society. My opinion: Karl Marx come to mind?
Books: "Inconvenient Facts" by Gregory Wrightstone, "The Weaponizing of Weather in the Phony Climate War" and "The Climate Chronicles" by Joe Bastardi, "Scientocracy" by the CATO Institute, "Lukewarming" by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger, "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" by Douglas J Cotton discusses an interesting hypothesis for what keeps the earth warm.