Climate change hasn't been debunked, though it is mostly caused by climate hypocrites
I blame Big Oil and their $100 billions of profit in 2022
Strong evidence to suggest that smoking and DDT were harmful was thrown into doubt by the very same network that is creating doubt on climate science. Journalists are paid by industry to unfavourably review the science (climate denier Toby Young is funded by BP) and people who aren’t scientists make vocal campaigns in the media instead of having legitimate scientific debate in the peer reviewed literature .
A case in point is Jordan Peterson (funding by fossil fuel via the Daily Wire) and his famous tweet which asked; ‘Does anyone see any problem with this graph?’
Yes! Me, I do! The graph, by someone called Joseph Toomey, is mislabelled as ‘7,643 B.C. to present’. The data for the graph is taken from a 2004 paper by Richard Alley who uses historical data which ends in 1855. This is written on the graph as 1885.
Although JP’s data was from a single Greenland ice core source with its many anomalies and assumptions, the graph conflates the results with the ‘climate history’ of the whole world. The error bars from a single source are just too big to draw any conclusions from, let alone circle peaks in red pen. The same is true of papers sampling sediments in the Pacific near Indonesia and showing 1-2 degree higher temperatures in the Holocene than last century.
Everyone knows results from multiple global sources and cores must be added together and the mean taken to see the earth as a whole. Doing so shows that the temperature in the last 10,000 years remained fairly stable, until the industrial revolution, when temperatures rise with the most obvious being from the 1970s onwards and is currently rising about 10 times faster than since the last ice age.
The author of the paper JP’s graph comes from himself says ‘So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good.’
Here’s the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph by Michael Mann and others of global mean temperatures below.
Some estimates of the global mean over the last 12,000 years appear to show warmer temperatures than now occurring about 6000 years ago, the Holocene conundrum. However, the Medieval Warming period was regional, other areas of the world were in fact colder (sea levels were lower so it can’t have been warmer) and even in England and other areas in the northern hemisphere it was not warmer than ‘today’. Information that it was is using false and misleading presentation of results.
This 2012 paper going up to 2006 (so not up to ‘today’) and only looking at Scandinavia (so not even northern hemisphere composites let alone global composites) admits that ‘Twentieth-century Scandinavian warming is relatively small compared with most other Northern Hemisphere high-latitude regions’ but does not show that it was globally hotter than ‘today’ in the Medieval period.
The latest 2021 reanalysis of the data and samples from around the world as a whole, using ice cores, tree rings, caves and excavations shows temperatures from the past 22,000 years now looks like this graph below and solves the Holocene conundrum 😺!
It was not warmer than last century in the Holocene, Minoan, Roman nor Medieval periods, they are not headscratchers.
Previous studies had suggested that the earth had been hotter 10,000 years ago and was cooling (in red) but this was found not to be the case (in blue) and was in fact slightly warming.
The data is also divided into hemispheres with the Northern hemisphere showing colder temperatures initially as it comes out of the ice age. The variance around the mean may look to the eye hotter than today, but they’re not.
There is also a steeper uptick of recent warming in the Northern hemisphere compared to the southern. The north is more industrialised and emits more carbon dioxide (differences can be measured by satellite) and levels are high especially in the winter when carbon is not absorbed by leaves of plants. However, the artic sea ice melting much faster (and not reflecting so much sun) than the antarctic land ice, explains why the north is heating up more quickly than the south.
Hansen wrote in 1981 that ‘Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s’. He seems to have been right.
Thus it appears that our ancestors have not experienced anything like these temperatures for a very long time, for probably over 100,000 years. And the temperature and climate would have heated and cooled much more slowly, allowing adaptation. It is also known why its was hot, because of the orbit of the earth. Without human intervention is should now be cooling for the same reasons. Except it’s getting hot very, very fast.
Yes it’s been hotter before and our ancestors survived but were not reliant on industry and agriculture. For some of the time there were no polar ices caps, the melting of which will significantly affect our civilisation.
For the past 65 million years the earth cooled until the glacial periods and the polar ice caps reformed.
Other factors such as sea temperatures (2022 was the hottest year on record for oceans), wind patterns and El Nino and La Nina must be taken into account by those studying climate. Last year was a cooling La Nina year, yet extended heatwaves and the hottest, 45 degree temperatures outside desert regions, were still recorded in some regions of China, India and Pakistan in 2022.
The past 7 years have been the warmest ever recorded (though obviously it may have been hotter before, this doesn’t mean these temperatures would not be hard for Homo Sapiens to adapt to now, nor that it’s not human activity that’s causing such rapid rise in temperatures), with 2016 and 2020 tied for the hottest. Some predict 2023 to be a warming El Nino year.
Indeed the latest best evidence from NOAA June 2023 the hottest June since records began in 1880.
and July
and August
And September
Temperatures are rising it seems because of the greenhouse effect. Rising Co2, nitrous oxide, methane and fluorinated gases from the burning of fossil fuels and solid wast and from animal agriculture, sewage, runoff, decaying landfill as well as the cutting down of forests which absorb carbon.
The history of climate change science clearly shows deliberate misrepresentation of Hansen’s and other’s work on carbon and temperature correlation, the influence of industry on politicians and their use of the tobacco industry playbook in the manufacturing of doubt about the causes of climate change, such as blaming the sun exclusively. Just like the ‘evidence’ negating harms of animals products, climate denial absolutely stinks of deliberate industry manipulation.
Haven’t Co2 levels been high before people say?
The high co2 in the Cambrian 500 million years ago was before plants (or mammals) evolved to suck in the co2. It would probably have been sweltering and it was unlikely there were any polar ice caps in danger of melting and flooding homes. There may well have been high co2 then but the earth was not habitable for humans either.
And yes, Co2 may be released from the ocean after a time of warming, but is due to the warming and also causes more warming.
Of course correlation doesn’t equal causation but it’s very suspicious! The greenhouse effect enabling the earth to be about 14 degrees Celsius, and more recently 15 degrees, instead of -18 degrees, was first proposed in 1824 by Fourier and by Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. Eunice Newton Foote, a really amazing women, experimented on heating gas in the sun and found that carbon dioxide heated the most and showed in 1856 that ‘the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapour than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide.’
According to NASA ‘Some people mistakenly believe water vapor (the most abundant greenhouse gas) is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of the warming of the ocean. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere also amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.
‘Increases in atmospheric water vapor also amplify the global water cycle. They contribute to making wet regions wetter and dry regions drier. The more water vapor that air contains, the more energy it holds. This energy fuels intense storms, particularly over land. This results in more extreme weather events.’
‘But more evaporation from the land also dries soils out. When water from intense storms falls on hard, dry ground, it runs off into rivers and streams instead of dampening soils. This increases the risk of drought.’
“As humans add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, small changes in climate are amplified by changes in water vapor. This makes carbon dioxide a much more potent greenhouse gas than it would be on a planet without water vapor.”
The earth has warmed by 1.2 degrees since the industrial revolution began and is now rising by about 0.18 degrees each decade. Most of the warming has happened over the last 40 years. Sea levels have risen by 8 inches since records began, with 4 of that in the last 20 years.
Climate change will of course increase the main driver of disease which is not pathogens nor parasites, but poverty. However, it’s not caused by too many impoverished Africans or Indians, with their small footprints. It’s caused by too many chiefs. The wealthiest are mostly to blame. The elite 1%, those people telling us how to live our lives, account for 25% of carbon emissions.
Instead of addressing the inequality caused by the 1%, they have managed to turn equality into a dirty word.
I think the earth will become hotter and, yes, just a few degrees will make a huge difference to many. There will be more floods, droughts and crop failures, exasperated by green revolutions and geo-engineering.
Addressing climate injustice as well as its driver; neo-colonialism, will make a huge difference to the lives of many people alive now. This is just as important as trying to preserve the earth for unborn human lives. It is worthwhile to do this in and of itself.
🐒
P.S.
No thermageddon? In 2022 flooding in Pakistan displaced 33 million people and 1300 died after a heatwave reaching 51 degrees (123 degrees Fahrenheit). the most prolonged heatwave in human history occurred in China seriously affecting 950 million people and drying up the Yangtze River, important for the economy of everyone in the world.
Yes Honga-Tonga has had an effective, but a small one against the backdrop of continued rise in temperature due to human CO2 emissions.
Something seems to be really happening from the 1980s onwards. It’s getting hotter (and apparently much more quickly than after any ice age) as burning fossil fuels, animal agriculture, deforestation and landfill increases. The 97% consensus that humans affect the climate in the 2013 looked at 21 years of relevant, ie those saying yes or no, climate science papers. There was also a 2009 survey by Peter Doran which found 97.4% publishing scientists agreed humans influence temperature. In 2010 Bill Anderegg found 97% among most active publishing scientists agreed that humans caused warming and endorsed by organisations from 80 countries.
It’s not that these conditions are unprecedented it’s that humans have not been around to cope with them and we’re making them happen so fast neither we nor any other species has time to adapt to them. Our whole society is based on a stable climate that we’ve enjoyed for 10,000 years. We seem to think that we can increase consumption indefinitely on a planet with finite resources, which makes these conditions worse. We’re driving our cars directly into a brick wall.
Polar bear populations may be increasing, but that may be because of hunting bans introduced since the 1970s.
Carbon is the basic unit of life, there’s nothing toxic about it, it’s essential and makes plants grow for people to eat. So is water, which when vapour is also apparently a greenhouse gas. I have nothing against water either. It’s lovely, I love drinking it. Some people seem to want to deliberately misunderstand what’s being said. Plants were not starving from lack of co2 before humans started pumping it out, they were flourishing. Imbalance of co2 does not improve crop yields, they have never been worse thanks to the green revolution, intensive farming, GMOs, glyphosate and desertification.The human activities of cutting down oxygen producing, carbon dioxide receiving trees and burning them as well as rocks, gas and oil from underground is changing the balance of the co2 cycle.
The 'climategate' emails that Corbett (who often gets the wrong end of the (hockey) stick) refers to alleged fudging of data and conflates two separate issues; mike's trick and hiding the decline in an email by Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia. Mike's trick is simply the ubiquitous technique of using reconstructed temperatures from ice cores and tree rings with actual thermometer measurements on the same graph. The decline referred to is not a decline in temperatures but rather a decline in tree ring thickness which should have correlated with the rise in thermometer temperatures, but which diverged in the 1960s due to local pollution in some areas. It has been publicly discussed since 1995. In 2009 stolen emails were investigated; yet 9 independent studies showed that nothing affected the science.
The 1998 hockey stick of Micheal Mann is not an illusion or a fudge, the first critique was from Steve McIntyre who claimed it contained statistical flaws, but the stick has been reproduced many times. in fact the latest data from 60 institutions around the world strengthens it.
Yes solar and volcanic activity affect temperature. It should be getting colder if we weren't warming it. When solar and volvanoes are taken into account co2 and temperature are tightly correlated. In the last few decades the sun has cooled, yet the temperature has risen. It was predicted that winters and nights should warm faster than summers and days if humans were warming the planet not changes in the sun. This is what has happened.
The vast majority of scientists in the 1970s predicted warming only a small number of papers predicted cooling. This is OK.
CO2 rises after temperature rises (due to changes in orbit) because the warmer sea releases CO2 but that doesn't mean that co2 can't cause warming too. In fact the extra CO2 caused extra warming in a reinforcing feedback. The lag doesn't disprove warming is caused by CO2 but rather reinforces evidence of positive feedback. It is a false dichotomy to have to chose between 2 options both of which are true. Increases temperates increase CO2 and increased CO2 increases temperatures.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas but doesn't cause the initial warming it amplifies it because the amount of vapour in the air depends on how warm it is. Yes carbon is a small percentage of the greenhouse gases but that doesn't mean its effect when amplified by water vapour is not large. Water vapour is a big reason the climate is so sensitive to co2 warming. small amounts of things can have big effects eg trace minerals, arsenic and alcohol in the body. And just a few degrees temperature will make a huge difference to humans way of living even if it doesn't kill us straight away.
There is no censorship of climate denial or carnivore recommendations at all on the internet, even though the government allegedly wants us to stop using oil and eating dead animals (though they heavily subsidise them). Millions have already been negatively affected by this free expression and millions of lives will be lost to climate change and poor diet because of this misinformation. It is not censored because industry benefits from climate denial and carnivore promotion. The censorship of covid denial continues because it harms, not benefits, industry.
We want to believe the reset are trying to control us so we can continue doing what we like and what $trillion oil industries want us to do. These industries are paying out $millions to their CEOs and share-holders, who receive $trillions in government production subsidies and who in 2022 were helped by government to consumer subsidies of $1.1 trillion, also making oil artificially cheaper than renewables.
I get that it feels like the slippery slope of government control using the excuse of the environment. Maybe I would have agreed with government pandemic measures if I had seen any scientific evidence for a pandemic, which I did not, but opposing government control and corruption without looking at the evidence doesn’t mean it’s not there nor that we’re not hurtling towards a brick wall.
It annoys me that 'covid denial' and questioning or wanting to discuss any of the pandemic measures recommended or mandated were labelled as anti-science by some. This is insulting and not what science is. Science is a debate, censoring those with dissenting views to the mainstream narrative on covid is not the way we want any govenmnent regulations to go, regardless if they use 'our own good' as an excuse. Censorship of dissent, emotional blackmail to comply, but also deliberately ignoring science if it says what you don’t like or believe that it’s a conspiracy to control you (though you end up supporting the industries of the elite 1% that you’re told are trying to control you) is the real anti-science.
Read this first thing in the morning. 😬 I still think we are innovative beings with an exponential factor of creativity. Don’t sign us off yet. Gaia can recognise the effort humanity can make toward revitalising her. Maybe we’ll be a part of the greatest love story to come.
You're welcome 🙏🏽