I’ve written the first part about the pseudoscience of global warming here.
One can’t talk about the logic of the Great Reset without first talking about the logic of catastrophic CO2 warming, since the Great Reset assumes that catastrophic CO2 warming is real. I’ve written about the Great Reset here. According to Klaus Schwab (author of Reset theory) the theory of CO2 warming makes the Great Reset necessary, much as the supposed threat of Covid-19 made lockdowns and other measures (supposedly) necessary. Hence, I’ll be dealing with CO2 warming more here. It’s important to dismantle this theory.
Global warming theory: I like to call it the theory of catastrophic CO2 warming because I don’t deny that the climate might be changing, as it always has. But what’s happening is not, and will not be, catastrophic or even close, no matter what Greta Thunberg says, and it’s likely that what’s happening is completely natural.
The earth’s climate has always been changing and sometimes fairly rapidly, as evidenced in Greenland ice cores. Obviously CO2 didn’t account for Medieval warming, and lack of it doesn’t account for the Little Ice Age, when the Thames froze over (image at top of this page.)
I’ve found that many people arguing against the consensus theory bring fairly sophisticated scientific understanding to the table. Originally a true believer in catastrophe, I was eventually won over by such writings as, “What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?” What fairly sealed the deal for me was my own research on coral reefs, when I discovered that the theory of CO2 destroying reefs is complete fantasy (see my previous post on climate.)
Interestingly, the theory of catastrophic CO2 warming can’t be refuted, which is odd for an authentic scientific hypothesis. Many would argue that it’s already been refuted by measurements of tropospheric temperatures that refute model predictions, but this doesn’t stop the true believers who do whatever they can to find some signature of a “hot spot” warming somewhere to save the theory, as if such endeavors refute actual measurements where such a hot spot is predicted to exist. But beyond this, notice that no matter what the weather does, nothing seems to refute the theory: if it gets too warm one year, that’s global warming; too cold, that’s global warming; stays the same, that’s global warming, too. If the theory had been ‘global cooling’ instead we’d all see that, too, once we’re conditioned to see it: to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I’d like to break this further discussion up into two parts (at least.) This essay will continue with the ‘nothing is really happening’ theme.
Arctic summer ice: the fallacy of misplaced causation
To pursue a bit more of the same line of evidence I presented in my earlier post, let’s take the “fact” of a catastrophically warming arctic so that we might see that this is actually happening but is highly unlikely to be due to CO2.
It’s true that summer arctic sea ice has been diminishing in recent years, but it’s also true that the minimum summer sea ice was in 2014, and that it’s been increasing somewhat since then (there’s still plenty of sea ice in the winter.) But there have also been periods in the past when arctic summer sea ice was very low, as evidenced by historical records, such that it was believed that ships might establish trade routes through the summer ice.
"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
In the 1960’s, satellite records show evidence of holes in arctic sea ice, indicating that the idea of a massive and continuous summer sea ice extent in the arctic might be on thin ice. We also see massive and rapid changes in Antarctic sea ice extent during the 1960’s, challenging the idea that the changes happening in Antarctica are ‘unprecedented.’
Consider that a melting Alaskan glacier uncovered a thousand-year-old forest. So of course a melting Alaskan glacier is evidence of arctic catastrophe. But … if there’s a 1,000 year-old forest underneath a glacier, then that means that 1,000 years ago it was warm enough there, and for long enough, for a forest to grow.
We also know that 1,000 years ago it was warm enough in Greenland for farming.
Regarding arctic sea ice, it makes no sense to say that the atmosphere is heating the oceans: it would take the atmosphere warming 100 degrees to warm the ocean 0.1 degree, if we understand that the atmosphere has 1/1000 the heat capacity of the oceans: even though the oceans seem relatively cold, the oceans (70% of the planet) store virtually all the heat on the planet. And infrared back-radiation, which is what CO2 does, only penetrates the first few millimeters of the ocean surface, which isn’t enough to do much of anything. What does penetrate many meters into the oceans? The sun’s energy.
Sea level: the fallacy of advocacy science
‘Advocacy science’ is science that advocates for a theory or point of view to such an extent that logic and evidence are subverted to keep the supported paradigm alive.
I refer readers to this essay by Nils Axel Morner, a sea level expert, who does a beautiful job of taking down the pseudoscience of catastrophic sea level rise. It’s important to quote what Dr. Morner says about a conference he attended when he asked why the satellite data had been tilted, since the original data showed no sea level rise:
In 2003, the satellite altimetry record … suddenly
took a new tilt—away from the quite horizontal record of
1992-2000 ….Obviously, some sort of “correction” has been made, without specifying this in a way that allows evaluation …. In most graphs representing the satellite altimetry sea level record (on the Internet and in journal papers), it is not even noted that the graphs do not present trends as read by the satellites, but trends after “corrections.”
… At the Moscow global warming meeting in 2005, in answer to my criticisms about this “correction,” one of the persons in the British IPCC delegation said, “We had to do so, otherwise there would not be any trend.” To this I replied: “Did you hear what you were saying? This is just what I am accusing you of doing.”
It’s true that sea level has been rising at many places on the globe, but it’s been rising since 1900 (when CO2 concentration was about 295 ppm,) about when our oldest tidal records began, and the consensus among even the alarmists is that the effects of CO2 weren’t noticeable until about 1950, when atmospheric CO2 was something like 320 ppm. (350.org tells us that that 350 ppm is the ‘safe’ level of atmospheric CO2.) Regarding the actual minor warming of the oceans, we might guess this has something to do with the sun, as variations in sunspots, etc., can cause changes in planetary temperatures.
We can look at sea level data provided by NOAA, where we find longer-term sea level gauge records. We can click on locations, such as Honolulu, and then in a pop-up window click on “Linear Trend” to get graphs such as this, where we see there’s no discernible acceleration in sea level rise, which is what CO2 is supposed to be doing:
Some other locations to try at the NOAA website for longer-term graphs would be The Battery, NYC; Bermuda; and Mera, Japan (near Tateyama.)
And the Pacific islands that are supposedly sinking under rising seas? Never-mind. But remember: “… the key problem is that sea level rise is likely to accelerate much beyond what we've seen in the 20th century.” So fear is still justified, according to theory and model predictions, if one believes such things.
I was going to continue the theme of ‘nothing unusual is happening’ but instead I want to move on to another aspect of climate in the next essays. Suffice it to say that Steven Koonin’s book, Unsettled, does a great job of explaining the uncertainties in climate science and exposing some of the fraud in what we’re sold as ‘the data.’ Hot days haven’t been increasing in the US: this is a fiction, and Koonin explains how the data was manipulated to show this. Neither have forest fires been increasing globally.
In the next essays we’ll be going on a wild ride. In preparation, please think about this: the pressure of the atmosphere at the surface is roughly 14.7 psi. That doesn’t sound like much, but let’s put it in terms of square feet: then the pressure is over one ton per square foot (it’s about 2117 pounds/square foot.) If a person standing up takes up two square feet then that means there’s over two tons of atmospheric pressure on him/her/they/it. Amazing. Don’t believe there’s that much pressure? Have a look; this is a tanker car with a partial vacuum inside:
So: why don’t we feel the pressure? Stay tuned, find out how this relates to the theory of catastrophic CO2 warming, and understand a bit about gravitational acceleration and a Copernican revolution in atmospheric physics.
Please leave this up.. I am just now reading this!! thanks. I would like to read this and explore your data. I have said I would do a lengthy analysis and I write on my blog .. but this is just what I was looking for. When I quote it or use it will give say it is Jim Reagen's newsletter. THANKS. :)
I have some time now: re reading the forest under the artic, as a Biologist (me) we were taught and still is true about the K T Event HTTPs://ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen2b.html.. there is so much to think about in your post. We studied the planetary change based on physics, time and given that the Earth is likely a Gyroscope. designed by an Intelligent Creator who inhabits timeless space.. (fyi about me). (this is based on YEARS OF research on my part of other's works in this area).. back to your idea. which is can be described as selectively picking our events which prove the thesis that there is such a thing as global warming (and that is true. but the earth as warmed and cooled for billions of years). sigh.. I read a book called RED HOT LIES.. and met the author. he was an attorney. I will look it up which describes how in the U.S the weather stations data are selectively chosen on hot places in the U.S and then extrapolated (the term to use) from those data points. This is in concurrence and supports your premises. WOW. that is a long URL. HIs name is Christopher Horner. Red HOT LIES. can be bought at used book stores.
This has been an ONGOING issue for DECADES.. and before that the little Ice Age.
well. I need to go.
I will come back to your posts again.
Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed
by Christopher C. Horner
Full StarFull StarFull StarFull StarFull StarSee Customer Reviews .. if you haven't taken a look at that .. it would be worth your while. :) Isabella