THE pesky 1930’s pops up again (hidden in plain sight from the correction-pen of Gavin and NASA-GISS!)
HOW inconvenient that Greenland temps in the 1930’s were as ‘warm’ as today, before CO2 became an issue.
AMO, not carbon dioxide levels, quite clearly controlling temperature ebb and flow in Greenland…
By Paul Homewood
As we all know, Greenland is warming up rapidly, causing the ice sheet to melt faster and faster.
Well, according to the BBC and New York Times, at least.
Only one slight problem – the temperature record shows quite a different story.
View original post 454 more words
BEFORE NASA climate was completely captured by the radical environmental movement and grant-gleefully sold their soul to the widely debunked “97% of scientists believe that CO2 is the climate control knob” groupthink-consensus-virus, they knew perfectly well that the sun controlled Earth’s climate.
AND, before the new-NASA-activists rewrote climate ‘science’, the National Aeronautics Space Agency boldly (and correctly) noted that “Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system” such as “clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness [have] the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.”
FROM the above NASA article that disappeared around 2010 :
WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY FORCINGS OF THE EARTH SYSTEM?
The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.
Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.
However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.
Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such “variables” as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool. For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or “aerosols”) would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.
Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth’s climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate.
“HE who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell
“CLIMATE alarmism is a gigantic fraud: it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending tens of billions of dollars of public money every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda.” – Leo Goldstein
CLIMATISM TOP 10 ALARMIST MYTHS – Intro
EXCESSIVE or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat is fundamental in driving the human CO2-induced
global warming climate change narrative.
THE most popular climatic and weather-related events, as marketed by the Climate Crisis Industry, fall well within the bounds of natural variability. So, in order for such events to make the headlines, attract taxpayer funding for ‘research’, and advance the misanthropic, man-made climate change agenda, they must be accompanied by inflated language, an urgent tone, imagery of doom, and in many cases, fraudulent data.
IN this series we take an objective/sceptical look at ten of the more popular metrics used by warming alarmists to push the CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) narrative, testing the veracity of the all-too-often wild and alarmist claims associated with each…
#3. OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
“Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era six hundred million years ago, with CO2 levels 4000% of what they are now. They are made of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) – and could not exist without substantial amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Unless the chemical properties of CaCO3 have changed, the corals [and crustaceans] will be just fine.” – Tony Heller
WITH a stubborn atmosphere failing to warm as predicted, another climate threat was needed to sustain the Climate Crisis industry and keep lazy reporters supplied with junk science to feed their catastrophic climate narrative.
ENTER “Ocean Acidification”!
SOUNDS scary right? From the onset, the term “ocean acidification” was deceptive by design. And the only valid ‘science’ in the pseudoscientific study of “Ocean Acidification” is the ‘science’ of scare-mongering.
OCEANS are alkaline. The correct scientific term for any pH change toward zero is “less alkaline”. Obviously not the scariest of descriptors to shock the public into belief.
“OCEAN ACIDIFICATION” was first referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, resulting in an explosion of journal articles, media reports and alarmist publications from environmental orgs. It has since gone viral, endorsed by scientists from numerous alarmist institutions including the Royal Society, the IPCC and NOAA who coined it “climate change’s evil twin” in a 2016 report.
A 2016 paper published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science put the issue of “ocean acidification” under the microscope, and found Scientists exaggerating the carbon dioxide threat to marine life…
Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research
“Ocean acidification” (OA), a change in seawater chemistry driven by increased uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans, has probably been the most-studied single topic in marine science in recent times. The majority of the literature on OA report negative effects of CO2 on organisms and conclude that OA will be detrimental to marine ecosystems. As is true across all of science, studies that report no effect of OA are typically more difficult to publish.
Excerpts from the paper:
Scientific or academic scepticism calls for critical scrutiny of research outputs before they are accepted as new knowledge (Merton, 1973). Duarte et al. (2014) stated that “…there is a perception that scientific skepticism has been abandoned or relaxed in many areas…” of marine science. They argue that OA is one such area, and conclude that there is, at best, weak evidence to support an OA-driven decline of calcifiers. Below, I raise some of the aspects of OA research to which I contend an insufficient level of organized scepticism has been applied (in some cases, also to the articles in this theme issue). I arrived at that conclusion after reading hundreds of articles on OA (including, to be fair, some that also raise these issues) and overseeing the peer-review process for the very large number of submissions to this themed issue. Importantly, and as Duarte et al. (2014) make clear, a retrospective application of scientific scepticism such as the one that follows could—and should—be applied to any piece of/body of research.
FROM an article in The Times :
An “inherent bias” in scientific journals in favour of more calamitous predictions has excluded research showing that marine creatures are not damaged by ocean acidification, which is caused by the sea absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
It has been dubbed the “evil twin of climate change” and hundreds of studies have claimed to show that it destroys coral reefs and other marine life by making it harder for them to develop shells or skeletons.
The review found that many studies had used flawed methods, subjecting marine creatures to sudden increases in carbon dioxide that would never be experienced in real life.
Dr Browman, who is also principal research scientist at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, found there had been huge increase in articles on ocean acidification in recent years, rising from five in 2005 to 600 last year.
He said that a handful of influential scientific journals and lobbying by international organisations had turned ocean acidification into a major issue.
“Such journals tend to publish doom and gloom stories . . . stated without equivocation,” he said. The bias in favour of doom-laden articles was partly the result of pressure on scientists to produce eye-catching work, he added.
“You won’t get a job unless you publish an article that is viewed as of significant importance to society. People often forget that scientists are people and have the same pressures on them and the same kind of human foibles. Some are driven by different things. They want to be prominent.”
Patrick Moore: Ocean ‘Acidification’ Alarmsim in Perspective
From Moore’s report: Read the rest of this entry »
ESSENTIAL reading and research for the ‘failing’ Guardian and New York Times respectively, who both launched new attack pieces on essential trace gas CO2, claiming this time that “Climate change [CO2] will make rice less nutritious”… 🤔
Before it was expropriated by the global warming/climate change movement, the term “Greenhouse Effect” referred to the effect of elevated carbon dioxide in greenhouses on crop chemistry. We know from greenhouse studies going back to the late 19th century that crop chemistry reflects the balance between soil chemistry, air chemistry, and light intensity. The important features of air chemistry are the availability of carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and of oxygen for plant respiration. The important features of soil chemistry are the availability of water, nitrates, phosphates, and minerals.
Greenhouse operations irrigation, air circulation to maintain air quality, heating for temperature control, the introduction of carbon dioxide to maintain elevated carbon dioxide levels of 1000 to 2000 parts per million for photosynthesis enrichment, and the availability of sufficient light for photosynthesis to occur. Photosynthesis enrichment improves crop yield and corresponding changes to soil chemistry must also be maintained to preserve the…
View original post 295 more words
AUSTRALIA’S climate when CO2 was at “safe levels”…
The “Federation Drought”, 1895-1902
Many of Australia’s worst droughts occur when one or two very dry years follow several years of generally below average rainfall. Such was the case in the so-called “Federation drought”, which began in the mid 1890s and reached its devastating climax in late 1901 and 1902.
The five years leading up to Federation (January 1901) saw intermittent dry spells over most of the country, particularly in 1897 and 1899; in most of Queensland, dry conditions were virtually unbroken from 1897. Most other parts of the country had reasonable rain in 1900 and early 1901, but with the coming of spring 1901 very dry weather set in across eastern Australia. By February 1902 concerns were expressed about Sydney’s water supply, and the New South Wales Government declared 26 February a day of “humiliation and prayer” for rain in that state. Similar declarations were made in Queensland in…
View original post 123 more words