Timothy Birdnow

Carbon dioxide levels did not change very much - even during massive climate shifts - in the three million year geological record as revealed by ice core samplings.

Climate alarmists have insisted that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of planetary temperatures, the "thermostat" and that warming and cooling are caused by drops in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This shoots that theory down.

Date:

Suck on that Gang Green!

Climate change as it is misnomered (it's not about change but about warming, but since people just weren't seeing the warming they switched the name to "hide the decline" as Phil Jones of CRU said of Michael Mann's paper in the journal Nature) is predicated on carbon dioxide being the principle forcing that drives planetary temperatures. If it is only a minor forcing (or none at all) then the theory - and the proposed draconian regulations the proponents want to impose that will radically change our lives (the Great Reset) are unnecessary.

This strongly suggests we have been chasing a wwill-o-the-wisp and ignoring the real causes of climate change. Changes in planetary albedo (reflectivity), changes in the Earth's magnetic field, changes in the Earth's rotational and orbital positionings (Milankovitch Cycles), volcanic activity, and even micrometeor bombardment all play a part, as does solar irradiance (and not just total solar irradiance - TSI - but the wave lengths the sun is putting out), and solar storm activity all play a part. So do cosmic rays. Carbon dioxide is just one factor among many but it is the one the Gang Green has zeroed in on because it ultimately empowers governments and enriches a lot of people and is being used as a tool by internationalist types to promote world government and international socialism. (Read the minutes of the Endangered Atmospheres Conference from the Seventies.) And then many climatologists don't understand the astrophysical and geological angles of this but zero in on atmospheric gases because that is what they have been taught to do and it's where they think to go.

Does carbon dioxide contribute to planetary warming? To a point, but the wavelength saturates quickly and about all you get is a two degrees rise. It's logarithmic; a doubling of co2 gives you a half return until the two degree mark is hit then it's over. But the warmiacs insist on positive feedbacks - especially the evaporation of water vapor to increase planetary warming and then the release of methane from permafrost. But water vapor makes more cloud cover which has a cooling effect and we have seen no evidence of that - the planet's albedo (reflectivity) has dropped, not risen. And there is zero evidence of increased precipitation planet-wide. They ignore this, and point to DROUGHTS as proof of climate change when in fact the theory at it's core predicts FLOODING. Flooding has not increased; the only reason we see more payouts from insurance over flooding is because people are now building in flood plains, places they never built before because they would lose their investments. Drownings are down worldwide too, showing there is no increase in water levels worldwide.

But try telling the Gang Green that. They insist on a high level of climate sensitivity (negative feedbacks) because otherwise people would shrug and say "so what? This has never been about science; it's been political since the first time the IPCC met to "study" the matter.

I would also like to point out that the "smoking gun" often provided by the alarmists has largely been upended by ice core research; those are showing the same isotope rates in the past as now.

This as the Earth moved out of the last glacial period; the heavier isotope declined, much as it is doing now, which the climate alarmists are blaming on human activity.

See also this which showed an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide - and a change in isotope ratios to boot.

Hide Comments | Add Comment