What's Wrong with Climate Alarmism

Richard Cronin

New evidence changes key ideas about Earth’s climate history waikato.ac.nz

Tony Marcom sneers:

I would think even though you have a background in chemical engineering and provide valuable expertise in thermodynamics,

Tim replies:

Tony Marcom If you read Richard Cronin you know full well he DOES focus on the evidence these scientists put forward and debunks them. Your criticism is not valid.

Who is it that is actually following the science? Not the purveyors of the alarmist climate theory certainly. Or we would not have the suppression of dissenting evidence as we do now.

Take the Tropospheric hot spot. They have searcheed everywhere for it (under couch cushions and in the hamper etc.) and not found it. In 2015 they suddenly found it! Except they found it by torturing the data to produce the numbers they wanted. Roy Spencer pointed out they were wrong at the time. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/ And there has been little said of it since. There has been no great increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. For example, during the time frame of 1975 to 1998 we saw increasing near surface water vapor pressure increase, but that increased slowed considerably since. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL107909
See also https://news.ucar.edu/132936/climate-change-isnt-producing-expected-increase-atmospheric-moisture-over-dry-regions

This destroys the entire climate change theory, as it is predicated on an increase in water vapor that correlates with increasing carbon dioxide levels (and thus heat). I short, the carbon dioxide is supposed to warm the planet, evaporate more water, and thus lead to more carbon dioxide and more water vapor and eventually to the melting of the permafrost. T'aint happ
Another example; Antarctic ice.https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov even the radically pro-alarmist NASA admits Antarctic sea ice increased by 1% per decade from 1979 to 2014, for example. That during a supposed major warming period.And contrary to what we are so often told, Antarctic ice shelves actually gained mass. The Antarctic Peninsula lost base(6693 km2) and West Antarctica (5563 km2) has been outweighed by area growth in East Antarctica (3532 km2) based on study of ice shelves between 2009 and 2019.

And no mention of the rise in volcanic activity under the West Antarctic Ice Shelf or the Antarctic Peninsula. Scientists have discovered over 91 active volcanoes under the ice and probably more are there. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45190-3 The WAIS is an ice sheet floating on top of shallow wter and if the water should warm from volcanism it is logical it would start to break up.

Also, the growth of EAIS puts pressure on the West and so ice would naturally drop into the ocean.

Funny; I didn't hear THAT from the media.

We also heard little about the failure of the rate of catmospheric carbon dioxide rise to slow during the Pandemic shutdown; it continued rising at the rate it had been despite a 25% reduction in emissions.

That too puts the whole theory in doubt. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10281825/

I could go on but the point is made.

Richard is trying to point out the fundamental flaw in the theory itself, which is predicated on faulty science. You can find what I provided above on any realist site. What Richard is providing are questions about the understanding of the scientists running this show, about their specialization not applying.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 915 words, total size 7 kb.