Climate Change Hysteria ?        

Contents:

Introduction
1. Temperature Measurement
2. The ‘Greenhouse’ Effect
3. Historical Cycles
4. Variation of Data Assumptions
5. ‘Bullishness’
6. Correlation and Causation
7. Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age
8. Media Bias
9. Weather c.f. Climate
10. Rising Sea Level
11. Fear
12. Politics and Power
13. Fossil Fuel and World Resources
14. Selective Presentation of Data
Conclusion

 
Introduction       [Contents]

COP 26 has raised the Climate Change temperature !  Why?
Are we heading for a global disaster?  Was a large part propaganda or ‘Fake News’ ?

Fact or Fiction?
The problem first gained public concern in the 1980's when it was called ‘Global Warming’. In the years after 2000 the global temperature has not followed the ‘Hockey stick’ increases that were predicted. This raises a key issue concerning the evidence and the assumptions made. Any computer model is only as good as the accuracy of the input science.
True science is always trying to ascertain the truth: it is not fixed.
      It took many centuries to believe in a spherical earth!
Good scientists are rare. They are willing to see new evidence impartially and admit previous errors.

1. Temperature Measurement       [Contents]

Obtaining a single average figure for the global temperature is more than difficult. The land surface area = 59 million miles2. Weather stations are few and not evenly spaced. Nor are they at the same height. (Air cools ~ 1oF / 300 feet). Many are in or close to warmer urban areas. To be useful the thermometers used must be accurate to at least 0.1o and have consistent shading. What about the temperature over the 70% of earth’s surface that is ocean?
Since 1980 satellite data has enabled measurement to cover the whole earth surface and thus give a significant increase in accuracy. But the many agencies get widely different results because of their averaging assumptions.

In the graph below the computer model generated Global temperatures that are based on these assumptions are all far above the observed figures. So it is reasonable to view the models with a high degree of scepticism.

Different climatologists can choose their assumptions for interpreting past data, averaging current data and for determining future computer models. Hopefully this enables more accurate graphical presentation. But sadly it can also be to adjust the trends, past and future to show what they want it to be.

It should be remembered that obtaining a single figure to indicate world temperature from very limited data is always going to be a fearsome task. It’s trustworthiness must have a varying degree of confidence. When presenting the graphs, both the data used and the assumptions made are usually difficult to obtain.

 
2. The ‘Greenhouse’ Effect       [Contents]

The sun’s radiation energy strikes first the earth’s cloud cover. Some is reflected back to space, a small amount is absorbed and the remainder then strikes the earth surface (land and sea). Much of this is absorbed and the remainder is radiated back towards space. If there is no cloud cover this re-radiated energy continues into space. If there is cloud cover it is then mostly absorbed. This is the ‘Greenhouse’ effect. It is highly dependent on the % cloud cover, its height and temperature. A small part of the re-radiated energy is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. During the last 2,000 years the % CO2 has been fairly constant at ~280ppm until 1900. It is now ~400 ppm.

There is no evidence for any increase in % CO2 during the medieval warm period, nor any decrease in the ‘Little Ice age’. So these significant changes of global temperature cannot have been caused by a change of % CO2, but by a change in the sun’s radiated energy.

Furthermore, some scientists today claim that if the % CO2 is above 300ppm that there is little further additional absorption of energy. Thus they reason that very little of today’s warming is due to man’s use of fossil fuels that produces CO2. Though it should also be emphasised that our extensive use of such non-renewable resources is highly selfish and inconsiderate of future generations. (That is also true for numerous mined mineral resources.)

 
3. Historical Cycles       [Contents]

These historical cycles of global temperature before 1000 AD have also been entirely independent of man’s activities. The sun’s radiation has an 11 year cycle of sunspot activity, which is too short a time to significantly affect the global temperature. But as the graph below indicates, the sun’s radiation has also changed for periods of ~ 250 years. Over the last 4000 years there were three such periods, and we are now experiencing a 4th time of warming. Historical data for this must obviously be indirect, and subject to assumptions and error. The effects of previous warmings, or sea level changes with a small world population was of far less importance than today.

How much is the world temperature dependent on % CO2 and thus on the use of fossil fuel?
There no doubt that the temperature has risen since 1750 when the Thames ice was thick enough to support Winter Fairs. But the vital question is, was the rise due to increased CO2 and the ‘Greenhouse effect’ or due to increased solar radiation? In spite of having good internet assess it remains difficult to find an unbiased scientific answer to these questions. The following is an attempt to cut through some of the bias and extremes and head towards some truth. I am an engineer, but have no experience in climatology.

 
4. Variation of Data Assumptions       [Contents]

The 2 graphs below shows how much climatologists use different assumptions. Some are chosen to include a Little Ice Age, and some that do not. They have varied their assumptions to eliminate both the Medieval Warming and the ‘Little Ice Age’. Also the temperature dip in 1940 to 1965 has been lost in the ‘noise’.

 
5. ‘Bullishness’       [Contents]

There is also a degree of ‘bullishness’ in presenting Global warming. In the graph below the warming ‘Trend line’ is heavily overprinted. But it only shows a trend from 1950 to 2015. This is dishonest because there is quite a different trend from 1940 to 1980 (almost level) and from 1880 to 1910 there is a definite fall! This presented graph is headed “No slow down in Global warming”, which is only true after 1970.  [see also para 14 ‘last 6 years’]

 
6. Correlation and Causation       [Contents]

This graph shows that from 1970 to 2020 CO2 and temperature follow the same trend, but between 1880 and 1940 when the Global Temperature takes a significant dip there is no correlation. Also between 1940 and 1970 CO2 continues to rise, but the temperature remains level. The ‘experts’ have no explanation for this.

The following graph shows that for the last 2000 years the CO2 was level at ~280 ppm. From 1000 AD to 1750 there was a significant fall in temperature, but no correlating fall in co2. Since then CO2 has risen rapidly due to man burning fossil fuels. Temperature has also risen. But this does not prove that CO2 has caused it. World population has also risen sharply (doubled since 1970). But that does prove that population had increased because CO2 has increased or visa-versa.

 
7. Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age       [Contents]

The graph below showing the Mediaeval Warming ~ 950 to 1100 as a similar warming to today. Also the Little Ice Age ~ 1650-1700. Both of these are very difficult to explain with the current global warming ethos, which assumes only % CO2 determines the global temperature.

It should be noted that temperatures 500 to 2000 years ago are always only best estimates, which vary between the different estimators!

 
8. Media Bias       [Contents]

Three examples this year reveal a distinct bias:
a) In 2021 Antarctica has posted its coldest winter since records began in 1957 with average temperatures of -61.1°C. The previous record was -60.6°C in 1976. The average temperature at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station between April and September was -61°C, the coldest on record, dating back to 1957. This was 4.5°C lower than the most recent 30-year average. But it didn’t make headline news because the media say Global Warming must not be challenged.
Click here for Weatherzone.com website.   (Use back arrow to return)

b) Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has suffered from temperature, but more from storms. But the largely unreported good news is that it has mostly recovered. I am no longer able to find the graph below on the internet. It shows coral growth in the central section; the North and South sections were similar.

c) Many websites say polar bears are badly threatened by climate change.
Click here for Earth.org - a typical website.   (Use back arrow to return)

But this is only what some ‘Climate’ scientists have calculated on their computer models.
It is not based on numbers counted on the ground.
These so called experts have a habit of exaggerating. (See graph section 2 above).
Practical research reports that actual numbers have increased !!
Click here for website ClimateRealism.org   (Use back arrow to return)

These examples reveal that many statements made concerning the effects of climate change are at best only estimates based on often inaccurate models and at worst are decidedly fraudulent. We can speculate on the reason for this. Many politicians generate fear to show they are doing something to ‘save the planet’. Many ‘scientists’ are funded governments and are thus obliged to hold these false views. But it could well be that governments desire to achieve a ‘one world power’ that controls everyone one earth.   Watch this space!

 
9. Weather c.f. Climate       [Contents]

Modern technology enables the media to instantly report weather events with pictures. And by using the term ‘Climate Change’ instead of ‘Global Warming’, it makes it easy to blame every extreme weather event as being man-induced . But throughout history storms, floods and droughts have been the experience of man. They reveal how God in his infinite wisdom made the weather to be unstable. Especially British weather! He designed the sun’s heat to evaporate the ocean water, and transfer billions of tons of fresh water inland each year that enables all the plants to grow.

Even with their latest and most powerful super-computer, the Met Office can only at best forecast 3 days ahead, through they try to go to 10 days. Weather is local and erratic; it can never be used to indicate a trend, and certainly not climate change. It is not simple, but highly complex. Consider the number of variables or different unstable influences in the behaviour of a simple hurricane that often start off the west coast of Africa. What influences its origin, and it varying path, strength, and rainfall?

 
10. Rising Sea Level       [Contents]

NASA’s satellite measurements started in 1993 and give an average rise 3.4 mm/year. =1"/7 years 2/3 of this 95mm rise is from melting glaciers + surface ice, and 1/3 from thermal expansion.
NASA expect the sea level will have risen between 26 cm and 77 cm by 2200.
A very ‘wild’ Guardian internet report predicts 30 cm / decade (=12"/decade) !!
Take care whenever reading the news media.
National Geographical estimate 90% of the sun’s warming energy is absorbed by the sea.
Sea level rise since 1880 = 23 cm (1880 to 1993 was 19cm = 1.7mm/year c.f. current 3.4 mm/yr)

11. Fear       [Contents]

The media, including the BBC, seem to delight in broadcasting fear and panic.
Facts are highly selected, and opinions are plentiful. Simple truth is sadly quite rare.

 
12. Politics and Power       [Contents]

COP 26 has shown how political leaders have come to view our climate as so important. In western democracies popularity is vital if they are to stay in power. For many, this will determine the decisions they make, rather than what is right or wrong. Funding and the career prospects often have too great an influence upon the leaders of such organisations as the IPCC, NOAA, Met Office, NASA, as well as the BBC.
Even religious leaders have tried to join the popularity band-wagon.
Men have always had a love affair with power. The world-wide Covid-19 and Climate Change could each be used as a step towards greater government power over the people. Not only national, but a step towards the prophesied ‘One World Government’. This is significant and worrying.

 
The desperation to present only one picture of global warming is seen in the graph of Global Warming on the NOAA website:     https://www.climate.gov/     Then scroll down to ‘Surface Temperature’

NOAA’s description of this (their own) graph is not only highly misleading, but fraudulent!
1. Between 1880 and 2020 the Temperature rose from -0.1 to + 1.0 as rise of 1.1 over 14 decades = 1.1/14 = 0.078
      this is slightly over half the 0.14 degrees per decade that NOAA quoted.
      Even if the period considered was from 1910 to 2020 the rate is only 1.4/11 = 0.127
2. No mention of the decrease of 0.4 between 1880 and 1910,
      nor the no average change between 1940 and 1970.
3. The rate of warming after 1981 (when Temp. was +0.2 up to +1.0 in 2020)
      is (1.0-0.2)/4 = .8/4 = 0.2 deg/decade.
      This is nearly 1/3 of the NOAA’s claimed 0.14 average rise for the period =4x.14 = 0.56 deg/decade
      (The presumed doubling comparison, but NOAA do not say what was ‘doubled’.)
 

13. Fossil Fuel and World Resources       [Contents]

The unsustainable, greedy abuse of the world’s fossil fuels and all its limited mineral resources, plastic pollution, and the considerable western rejection of Almighty God and his Word, especially by replacing creation with evolution, are of far greater concern and consequence than climate change. He will not hold us blameless for our selfishness and the neglect of the poor. He never has and he never will. There is only one solution; that we call upon the name of the Lord. Let us look forward to the day when “creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:21)

 
14. Selective Presentation of Data       [Contents]

Much of the media graphical presentation is highly selective, especially on time scale e.g.

a) Very seldom is the global temperature before 1880 shown on graphs because this would reveal the Roman and the Medieval Warming periods and also the ‘Little Ice Age’. It would be embarrassing to reveal that this earth had warmed before without any additional CO2 being emitted from man’s use of fossil fuels. Also after a mini ice age ~1750 the temperature inevitably rises above the average. But this is never mentioned !

b) Recently the emphasis has been changed from Global Warming to Climate Change.  Why?
First because the media can then claim that every extreme weather condition can be attributed to it, which keeps it in the news and magnifies the policy of fear. (This same fear generation was practised in the efforts to prevent Brexit.) But in truth the number of extreme events, temperature, rain, drought, wind, earthquakes etc, have not increased in the last 100 years. Though it is true, that with modern communications, the news media are now able to publish many more

The 2021 HadCRUT5.0.1.0 data set graph below shows the Global Temperature Anomaly rise.
It was downloaded and plotted from Met Office Hadley website:
      https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/data/current/download.html
This full data set gives the Temperature Anomaly to 6 decimal places,
      which is way beyond the accuracy of the temperature measuring instruments.
      Please note that the trend of the data is not being challenged.

Overall it shows a temperature rise from -0.4 to +.8 = 1.2 degrees.

However the IPCC 2021 report does not try to explain the temporary drop from 1940 to 1965 when the CO2 continued to rise. Since this is embarrassing to their ongoing mantra, it is just ignored.

c) Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the next graph using the same HadCRUT Met Office data set that is compiled from ~12,000 weather stations + ocean buoys, together with the NASA Data set that is compiled from Satellite data. Both these sources for the Global Temperature Anomoly reveal that there has been no significant global temperature rise during the last 6 years !!
In fact both the graphs show it has even on average fallen slightly.

The NASA Data is published on:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Both data sets are in the public domain, but the graph above showing just the last 6 years, is not published.
By keeping their graphs using a long time scale, they hope the last 6 years will remain obscured.
This refusal to proclaim their own facts is more than 'unscientific', it is dishonest.

The principal basis for the hysteria at COP 26 was because Global warming is claimed to be man-induced. But the Met Office and NASA official data that gives their best calculations to obtain a single global temperature shows that it has risen, but is now no longer rising! The mass of this earth is such that takes decades to respond to change in energy inputs. So this 6 years may be a temporary pause. But it must be a severe challenge to what is predominately declared by political leaders, some climatologists and the Media.
No doubt each have their own agenda, whatever that may be.
But true science is never afraid to change its conclusion when facts demand it.

This graph plotted from official figures was not seen at the Glasgow COP 26. I wonder why? !!
The estimated net zero cost is $130,000 billion. Absolutely impossible !!

 
Conclusion       [Contents]

The fact of global warming since 1750 to today is not contested.
But the ‘science’ claims that this is caused by increased CO2 is strongly contested because:
      1. While there has been an increase in global temperature in the last 270 years, it has not been consistent with the steadily increasing rate at which CO2 has risen.
      2. The vital need to hugely reduce the world use of fossil fuels, especially oil and gas, so that future generations will have sufficient energy to maintain living standards and increase that for the poor.
      Human selfishness is far more problematic than CO2
      Fusion energy is still many years, even decades, away.
      3. Causation. Warming is mostly caused by increased sun’s radiation, not by an increased % CO2
      4. Reducing CO2 will bankrupt the world without changing the global temperature.

It seems to be a huge deceit that increased CO2 is causing global warming.
But it is certainly not the only deceit that the world is suffering. And it will continue to suffer.
When Jesus taught his disciples about the end times in Math 244 he told them:
      “Watch out that no one deceives you.”  He repeated this warning twice more.  Math 2411 and 24
Social media is being used to rapidly corrupt the Judeo/Christian moral living standards.
      This will continue. The world will not avoid the Biblical prophesies for the future.
      Man seeks freedom, but in doing so, discards responsibility and having compassion for others.
And most foolishly he rejects Almighty God, his glorious creation, his Word and his offer of salvation.

[Top]